Whorton E B, Kilian D J
Mutat Res. 1981 Jun;85(3):161-4. doi: 10.1016/0165-1161(81)90031-5.
Cytogenetics data resulting from one laboratory in a multiple-laboratory study were analyzed to determine if 5 well-trained scorers produced significantly different results using metaphase scoring procedures. Although the scorers reached the same general conclusion, results show that scorer differences exists (p less than 0.01). Consequently, all participating scorers in a laboratory should be used equally in all treatment groups and the results should be analyzed accordingly to account for scorer variations. This is easily accomplished in controlled prospective experiments; however, it is often difficult in retrospective studies using data which exists. In such studies, every effort should be made to analyze and interpret the data so that scorer differences are taken into account. For severely damaged cells not only were there scorer differences but the difference were greater at higher doses. This phenomenon may be related to the operational definition of a severely damaged cell, since scorers who identify more damage than other scorers would logically tend to classify more cells as severely damaged both overall and at lower doses.
对多实验室研究中来自一个实验室的细胞遗传学数据进行了分析，以确定5名训练有素的评分员使用中期评分程序得出的结果是否存在显著差异。尽管评分员得出了相同的总体结论，但结果表明评分员之间存在差异（p小于0.01）。因此，实验室中的所有参与评分员应在所有治疗组中平等使用，并应相应地分析结果以考虑评分员的差异。这在对照前瞻性实验中很容易实现；然而，在使用现有数据的回顾性研究中往往很困难。在这类研究中，应尽一切努力分析和解释数据，以便考虑评分员的差异。对于严重受损细胞，不仅存在评分员差异，而且在较高剂量下差异更大。这种现象可能与严重受损细胞的操作定义有关，因为识别出比其他评分员更多损伤的评分员在逻辑上倾向于将更多细胞总体上以及在较低剂量下归类为严重受损。
