Skip to main content

Table 2 Interrater reliability analysis of v2018 EASL and LI-RADS categories

From: Man or machine? Prospective comparison of the version 2018 EASL, LI-RADS criteria and a radiomics model to diagnose hepatocellular carcinoma

LR categories for reviewer 1

LR category for reviewer 2

κ value

Agreement

LR-1

LR-2

LR-3

LR-4

LR-4 V

LR-5

LR-5 V

LR-M

LR-MV

All

Agreement on all LR categories

 LR-1

12

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

13

0.7437 (0.6644–0.8230)

Substantial

 LR-2

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

3

 LR-3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 LR-4

1

1

0

6

0

6

0

0

0

14

 LR-4 V

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

3

 LR-5

0

0

0

7

0

118

2

1

0

128

 LR-5 V

0

0

0

0

0

2

27

1

1

31

 LR-M

0

0

1

1

0

7

3

13

3

28

 LR-MV

0

0

0

0

0

1

3

0

5

9

 All

13

3

1

15

0

136

35

17

9

229

Agreement on LR-5/LR-5 V vs others

Results for reviewer 1

Results for reviewer 2

  

LR-5/LR-5 V

others

All

LR-5/LR-5 V

149

10

159

0.6542 (0.5453–0.7631)

Substantial

others

22

48

70

All

171

58

229

Agreement on LR-4/LR-4 V/LR-5/LR-5 V vs others

Results for reviewer 1

Results for reviewer 2

  

LR-4/LR-4 V/LR-5/LR-5 V

others

All

LR-4/LR-4 V/LR-5/LR-5 V

170

6

176

0.7109 (0.5985–0.8233)

Substantial

others

16

37

53

All

186

43

229

Agreement on EASL v2018

Results for reviewer 1

Results for reviewer 2

  

0

1

All

0

40

14

54

0.6809 (0.5674–0.7944)

Substantial

1

12

163

175

All

52

177

229

  1. Abbreviations: LI-RADS Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System, EASL European Association for the Study of the Liver, MRI magnetic resonance imaging, LR-4 V LR-TIV in the presence of LR-4 lesions, LR-5 V LR-TIV in the presence of LR-5 lesions, LR-MV LR-TIV in the presence of LR-M lesions