A Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of VIZAMYL™ Reader Training Programme in Europe

Accuracy was estimated as 100 percent (%) *(number of true positives [TP] + number of true negatives [TN]) / (number of TP + number of TN + number of false positives [FP] + number of false negatives [FN]). The data presented are the point estimates representing percentage of accuracy, with Measure Type "Number" and 95% exact binomial confidence interval. These have been estimated using Clopper-Pearson method.

Sensitivity was defined as 100%*number of TP / (number of TP + number of FN). The data presented are the point estimates representing percentage sensitivity, with Measure Type "Number" and 95% exact binomial confidence interval. These have been estimated using Clopper-Pearson method.

Specificity was defined as 100%*number of TN / (number of TN + number of FP). The data presented are the point estimates representing the percentage specificity, with Measure Type "Number" and 95% exact binomial confidence interval. These have been estimated using Clopper-Pearson method.

The PPV was defined as 100%*number of TP / (number of TP + number of FP). The data presented are the point estimates representing percentage PPV, with Measure Type "Number" and 95% exact binomial confidence interval. These have been estimated using Clopper-Pearson method.

The NPV was defined as 100%*number of TN/ (number of TN + number of FN). The data presented are the point estimates representing percentage NPV, with Measure Type "Number" and 95% exact binomial confidence interval. These have been estimated using Clopper-Pearson method.

Correlation coefficient was used to assess the correlation between clinical reader age and accuracy. A scatterplot of clinical reader accuracy vs. reader age was plotted to check correlation (coefficient) between accuracy and age.

Number of participants with accuracy < 0.9333 or >= 0.9333 in terms of sex of clinical readers were reported.

Number of participants with association of electronic training (with or without In-person training) with clinical reader accuracy were reported.

Number of participants with association of In-person training (with or without electronic training) with clinical reader accuracy were reported.

Number of participants with association of training type with clinical reader accuracy (excluding readers who took both types) were reported.

Time from last training was reported. Number of readers remaining at timepoint was number of readers with accuracy greater than or equal to 0.9333. All readers met this criterion at time 0 hence, data for all clinical reader is reported. All 18 readers were trained in interpretation of Vizamyl images & as part of their training, had their interpretation accuracy tested using 15 test images. To pass test, a reader had to interpret atleast 14 of 15 images correctly. 14 represents 0.9333 of 15, so each reader had to have an accuracy of atleast 0.9333 in order to pass test. Date on which a reader took his/her test is considered to be Time 0. Each reader's accuracy at a later time was assessed in study.