{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03769633507853403, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017277486910994764, 'mean_word_length': 5.56701030927835, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multi-laboratory inter-institute reproducibility study of IVOCT and IVUS assessments using published consensus document definitions.

AIMS
The aim of this study was to investigate the reproducibility of intravascular optical coherence tomography (IVOCT) assessments, including a comparison to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Intra-observer and inter-observer variabilities of IVOCT have been previously described, whereas inter-institute reliability in multiple laboratories has never been systematically studied.


METHODS AND RESULTS
In 2 independent laboratories with intravascular imaging expertise, 100 randomized matched data sets of IVOCT and IVUS images were analysed by 4 independent observers according to published consensus document definitions. Intra-observer, inter-observer, and inter-institute variabilities of IVOCT qualitative and quantitative measurements vs. IVUS measurements were assessed. Minor inter- and intra-observer variability of both imaging techniques was observed for detailed qualitative and geometric analysis, except for inter-observer mixed plaque identification on IVUS (κ = 0.70) and for inter-observer fibrous cap thickness measurement reproducibility on IVOCT (ICC = 0.48). The magnitude of inter-institute measurement differences for IVOCT was statistically significantly less than that for IVUS concerning lumen cross-sectional area (CSA), maximum and minimum lumen diameters, stent CSA, and maximum and minimum stent diameters (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P = 0.02, P < 0.001, and P = 0.01, respectively). Minor inter-institute measurement variabilities using both techniques were also found for plaque identification.


CONCLUSION
In the measurement of lumen CSA, maximum and minimum lumen diameters, stent CSA, and maximum and minimum stent diameters by analysts from two different laboratories, reproducibility of IVOCT was more consistent than that of IVUS.