Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptHHS Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Arch Neurol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 December 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Arch Neurol. 2010 December; 67(12): 1506–1512.
doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.301

Figure 2

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms-311917-f0002.jpg

Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of expert raters and panelists with panels reviewing FDG-PET images

Consensus panel diagnoses (in black) based on images alone or with clinical scenarios were more accurate than diagnoses of 0 of 6 panelists and 2 of 6 raters when reviewing images and scenarios (A) and 2 of 6 panelists and 2 of 6 raters when reviewing images alone (B). Two panelists and two raters (in red) had a statistically significant lower accuracy than each panel (p<.05, Hochberg corrected). In contrast, across the two panels, 6 of 12 panelists and 5 of 12 raters (in blue) had a statistically significant greater accuracy than the panel diagnoses (p<.,05, Hochberg corrected).

Images in this article

  • Figure 1
  • Figure 2
  • Figure 3
Click on the image to see a larger version.