The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Interobserver agreement of various thyroid imaging reporting and data systems
Open accessAbstract
Ultrasonography is the best available tool for the initial work-up of thyroid nodules. Substantial interobserver variability has been documented in the recognition and reporting of some of the lesion characteristics. A number of classification systems have been developed to estimate the likelihood of malignancy: several of them have been endorsed by scientific societies, but their reproducibility is yet to be assessed. We evaluated the interobserver variability of the AACE/ACE/AME, ACR, ATA, EU-TIRADS and K-TIRADS classification systems and the interobserver concordance in the indication to FNA biopsy. Two raters independently evaluated 1055 ultrasound images of thyroid nodules identified in 265 patients at multiple time points, in two separate sets (501 and 554 images). After the first set of nodules, a joint reading was performed to reach a consensus in the feature definitions. The interobserver agreement (Krippendorff alpha) in the first set of nodules was 0.47, 0.49, 0.49, 0.61 and 0.53, for AACE/ACE/AME, ACR, ATA, EU-TIRADS and K-TIRADS systems, respectively. The agreement for the indication to biopsy was substantial to near-perfect, being 0.73, 0.61, 0.75, 0.68 and 0.82, respectively (Cohen’s kappa). For all systems, agreement on the nodules of the second set increased. Despite the wide variability in the description of single ultrasonographic features, the classification systems may improve the interobserver agreement that further ameliorates after a specific training. When selecting nodules to be submitted to FNA biopsy, that is main purpose of these classifications, the interobserver agreement is substantial to almost perfect.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Haugen, B. R., Alexander, E. K., Bible, K. C., Doherty, G. M., Mandel, S. J., Nikiforov, Y. E., Pacini, F., Randolph, G. W., Sawka, A. M., Schlumberger, M., et al. (2016) · Thyroid® · doi:10.1089/thy.2015.0020 · Cited by 16,535
Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312450709336664 · Cited by 4,225 · cited 1×
“Agreement on ordinal ratings was assessed with the Krippendorff α statistic (17).”
Method
Cited by
The Diagnosis and Management of Thyroid Nodules: A Review
Durante, C., Grani, G., Lamartina, L., Filetti, S., Mandel, S. J., & Cooper, D. S. (2018) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2018.0898 · Cited by 803
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Grani, G., Lamartina, L., Cantisani, V., Maranghi, M., Lucia, P., & Durante, C.
- Venue
- Endocrine Connections
- Publisher
- Bioscientifica
- Published
- 2018-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-7
- ISSN
- 2049-3614 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2774569033
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interobserver agreement of various thyroid imaging reporting and data systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1530/ec-17-0336
- The paper
- Grani, G., Lamartina, L., Cantisani, V., Maranghi, M., Lucia, P., & Durante, C. (2018). Interobserver agreement of various thyroid imaging reporting and data systems. Endocrine Connections. https://doi.org/10.1530/ec-17-0336
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.