DFUC WG meeting
2022-07-12
1. Summary of covariates
Click here for more details
| Indiana (N=6) |
Stanford (N=6) |
UCSF (N=18) |
UMich (N=30) |
Overall (N=60) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 54.0 (11.4) | 70.0 (9.53) | 55.3 (8.83) | 56.0 (12.6) | 57.0 (11.8) |
| Median [Min, Max] | 55.0 [34.0, 67.0] | 69.5 [58.0, 81.0] | 58.0 [40.0, 70.0] | 60.0 [29.0, 76.0] | 59.0 [29.0, 81.0] |
| Gender | |||||
| Female | 3 (50.0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 4 (22.2%) | 3 (10.0%) | 11 (18.3%) |
| Male | 3 (50.0%) | 5 (83.3%) | 14 (77.8%) | 27 (90.0%) | 49 (81.7%) |
| Ethnicity | |||||
| Non-Hispanic | 6 (100%) | 4 (66.7%) | 14 (77.8%) | 30 (100%) | 54 (90.0%) |
| Hispanic | 0 (0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 4 (22.2%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (8.3%) |
| Unknown or not reported | 0 (0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) |
| Highest level of education | |||||
| Bachelor's degree (e.g., BA, AB, BS, BBA) | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (33.3%) | 2 (11.1%) | 2 (6.7%) | 7 (11.7%) |
| High school graduate | 2 (33.3%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (16.7%) | 3 (10.0%) | 8 (13.3%) |
| Master's degree (e.g., MA, MS, MEng, MEd, MBA) | 1 (16.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.6%) | 4 (13.3%) | 6 (10.0%) |
| Unknown | 2 (33.3%) | 3 (50.0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (8.3%) |
| Some college, no degree | 0 (0%) | 1 (16.7%) | 8 (44.4%) | 15 (50.0%) | 24 (40.0%) |
| Associate degree: academic program | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) |
| Doctoral degree (e.g., PhD, EdD) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.6%) | 2 (6.7%) | 3 (5.0%) |
| No diploma | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (11.1%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.3%) |
| Associate degree: occupational or technical or vocational program | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (10.0%) | 3 (5.0%) |
| GED or equivalent | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) |
| Employment status | |||||
| Disabled, permanently or temporarily | 3 (50.0%) | 0 (0%) | 7 (38.9%) | 10 (33.3%) | 20 (33.3%) |
| Looking for work, unemployed | 1 (16.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (3.3%) | 3 (5.0%) |
| Retired | 1 (16.7%) | 4 (66.7%) | 5 (27.8%) | 10 (33.3%) | 20 (33.3%) |
| Working now | 1 (16.7%) | 2 (33.3%) | 4 (22.2%) | 7 (23.3%) | 14 (23.3%) |
| Laid off | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) |
| Other | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) |
| Sick leave or maternity leave | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) |
| Marital status | |||||
| Divorced | 1 (16.7%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (16.7%) | 3 (10.0%) | 7 (11.7%) |
| Married | 1 (16.7%) | 3 (50.0%) | 3 (16.7%) | 15 (50.0%) | 22 (36.7%) |
| Never married | 2 (33.3%) | 2 (33.3%) | 9 (50.0%) | 7 (23.3%) | 20 (33.3%) |
| Widowed | 2 (33.3%) | 1 (16.7%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (13.3%) | 7 (11.7%) |
| Domestic partner | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (11.1%) | 1 (3.3%) | 3 (5.0%) |
| Separated | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (5.6%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) |
2. Match summary
Click here for more details
For each patient (University of Pittsburgh not included) we obtain the total number of observations from Standard of Care (SOC) images and eKARE images and then report center-level medians. We also obtain the number of ‘matched’ observations - where we have readings from both SOC as well as eKARE.| Center | # of patients | Median # of SOC readings | Median # of eKARE readings | Median # of matched readings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indiana University | 8 | 9.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| Stanford University | 7 | 10.0 | 9.0 | 8.5 |
| UCSF | 19 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 |
| University of Miami | 4 | 3.5 | 2.5 | NA |
| University of Michigan | 31 | 6.5 | 3.5 | 3.0 |
3. Pattern(s) of missingness
Click here for more details
For each patient, at each visit we investigate if (a) SOC measurements and (b) eKARE measurements were recorded.
- IF: Both SOC and EKARE present? Use a blue tag.
- ELSE IF: Only SOC present, EKARE missing? Use a yellow tag.
- ELSE: Only EKARE present? Use a black tag.
4. Error in measurement (eKARE, relative to SOC)
Click here for more details
In this section we assume SOC is the gold-standard and
compare accuracy of eKARE measurements relative to
SOC measurements.
For patient \(j\) in center \(i\) and visit \(k\), we calculate the
absolute percentage error for a measurement type (say,
width) denoted by \(APE^{w}_{ijk}\) as follows: \[APE^{w}_{ijk} = 100 \times \left(\frac{\left|
\text{SOC}^w_{ijk} - \text{eKARE}^w_{ijk} \right|}{ \text{SOC}^w_{ijk}}
\right).\] We summarise this percentage error at a center-level
and examine boxplots for each of the three measurement categories:
length, width, and area, with the
intent of comparing accuracy across different study center.
a. For length
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (stat_boxplot).b. For width
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (stat_boxplot).c. For area (derived from length and
width for SOC measurements)
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (stat_boxplot).visit)
| Indiana University (N=36) |
Stanford University (N=45) |
UCSF (N=141) |
University of Michigan (N=131) |
Overall (N=353) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Length APE (%) | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 98.5 (108) | 33.9 (44.4) | 18.9 (30.1) | 31.8 (57.4) | 33.7 (59.2) |
| Median [Min, Max] | 59.7 [0, 450] | 18.2 [0, 223] | 10.0 [0, 200] | 16.7 [0, 400] | 16.7 [0, 450] |
| Missing | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.3%) |
| Width APE (%) | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 96.6 (137) | 67.4 (95.8) | 29.9 (89.3) | 50.9 (89.0) | 49.3 (97.7) |
| Median [Min, Max] | 52.6 [0, 620] | 22.2 [0, 400] | 7.42 [0, 1000] | 20.0 [0, 600] | 16.7 [0, 1000] |
| Missing | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.3%) |
| Area APE (%) | |||||
| Mean (SD) | 230 (426) | 52.8 (62.1) | 65.0 (155) | 64.8 (140) | 80.2 (195) |
| Median [Min, Max] | 53.4 [6.29, 1720] | 37.5 [0, 289] | 26.9 [0, 900] | 27.3 [0, 900] | 29.9 [0, 1720] |
| Missing | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.3%) |