A150 MODERATE AGREEMENT IN ENDOSCOPIC DISEASE SCORING OF PEDIATRIC EOSINOPHILIC ESOPHAGITIS AMONG PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGISTS IN CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Endoscopy is an important tool in assessing the severity of gastrointestinal diseases including Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE). Agreement regarding endoscopy outcomes is important when using tools such as the Endoscopic Reference Score for EoE (EREFS). Purpose Our goal was to determine interrater and intrarater agreement of EREFS among Canadian pediatric gastroenterologists. Method Survey-based study of interrater and intrarater reliability amongst pediatric gastroenterologists with interest in pediatric EoE. Participants were sourced from the Canadian Pediatric EoE Network. Participants were asked how many years of training they’ve had with endoscopy for pediatric EoE and their comfort in disease scoring for pediatric EoE. Pediatric EoE cases were identified from the pediatric EoE registry at the Stollery Children’s Hospital with an endoscopic video associated with each case. Participants were asked to score each video using the EREFS questionnaire for the proximal, middle and distal segments of the esophagus. 15 endoscopic videos were evaluated, with 3 cases provided each week over a period of 5 weeks. Additional data included ratings of the video quality and endoscopy quality. Of 15 cases, 12 were unique cases, distributed evenly in severity between no active disease to severe disease. 3 cases were repeated to assess intrarater reliability. The maximum grade of the proximal, middle and distal segments of the esophagus for each component endoscopic finding (edema, rings, exudates, furrows, strictures) were used for reliability calculations. Fleiss Kappa was calculated for all EREFS items and for each component endoscopic finding. Cohen’s Kappa was calculated to assess intrarater reliability. Result(s) Fifteen participants were recruited for the study. The participants had a median of 12 years (IQR: 7, 19) of clinical experience in endoscopy for pediatric EoE. The majority of participants were “comfortable” (i.e., 4 on 5-point scale) with EREFS scoring for pediatric EoE. Fleiss Kappa for all EREFS items was 0.481. For each component endoscopic finding (edema, rings, exudates, furrows, strictures), Fleiss Kappa was 0.365, 0.293, 0.548, 0.263, 0.445 respectively. Cohen’s Kappa had a median of 0.620 (IQR: 0.593, 0.704). The majority of raters rated video quality and endoscopy quality as “good” (i.e., 4 on 5-point scale). Conclusion(s) There is moderate interrater reliability in EREFS scoring for pediatric EoE. Interrater reliability was between fair to moderate for each component endoscopic finding. Intrarater reliability was good. This study shows there is room for improvement in disease scoring for pediatric EoE. This could be in the form of additional training, expert-defined conventions, or centralized reading which have reduced variability in endoscopic reporting for adult GI disease in past studies and could be used in a follow-up study to attempt to improve agreement. Additionally, incorporating EREFS into routine clinical practice may increase agreement amongst endoscopists. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».