↓ Skip to main content

Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma In Situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma In Situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13000-015-0320-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando Schuh, Jorge Villanova Biazús, Erika Resetkova, Camila Zanella Benfica, Alessandra de Freitas Ventura, Diego Uchoa, Márcia Graudenz, Maria Isabel Albano Edelweiss

Abstract

Histopathological grading diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast may be very difficult even for experts, and it is important for therapeutic decisions. The challenge may be due to the inaccurate and/or subjective application of the diagnosis criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the intra-observer agreement between a traditional method and a developed web-based questionnaire for scoring breast DCIS. A cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the diagnostic agreement of an electronic questionnaire and its point scoring system with the subjective reading of digital images for 3 different DCIS grading systems: Holland, Van Nuys and modified Black nuclear grade system. Three pathologists analyzed the same set of digitized images from 43 DCIS cases using two different web-based programs. In the first phase, they accessed a website with a newly created questionnaire and scoring system developed to allow the determination of the histological grade of the cases. After at least 6 months, the pathologists read again the same images, but without the help of the questionnaire, indicating subjectively the diagnoses. The intra-observer agreement analysis was employed to validate this innovative web-based survey. Overall, diagnostic reproducibility was similar for all histologic grading classification systems, with kappa values of 0.57 ± 0.10, 0.67 ± 0.09 and 0.67 ± 0.09 for Holland, Van Nuys classification and modified Black nuclear grade system respectively. Only two 2-step diagnostic disagreements were found, one for Holland and another for Van Nuys. Both cases were superestimated by the web-based survey. The diagnostic agreement between the web-based questionnaire and a traditional method, both using digital images, is moderate to good for Holland, Van Nuys and modified Black nuclear grade system. The use of a scoring point system does not appear to pose a major risk of presenting large (2-step) diagnostic disagreements. These findings indicate that the use of this point scoring system in this web-based survey to grade objectively DCIS lesions is a useful diagnostic tool.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 6 14%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Computer Science 2 5%
Linguistics 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2015.
All research outputs
#6,421,635
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#168
of 1,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,090
of 262,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#21
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,126 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.