AGREEMENT AMONG CANADIAN RETINA SPECIALISTS IN THE DETERMINATION OF TREATMENT ELIGIBILITY FOR PHOTODYNAMIC THERAPY IN AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objectives: To determine inter- and intraobserver agreement among Canadian retina specialists in their angiographic classification of choroidal neovascularization and their decision to treat with photodynamic therapy. Agreement was also determined between retina specialists and a Reading Center. Methods: Forty retina specialists graded 24 cases of exudative age-related macular degeneration on two occasions separated by 6 months. Participants were asked to categorize the choroidal neovascularization and indicate if they would treat with photodynamic therapy. Agreement was determined for decision to treat and for interpretation of the fluorescein angiogram. Angiographic interpretation by participants was compared with that of the Reading Center. Results: The kappas among the 40 participants for lesion categorization and treatment decision were 0.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.36–0.52) and 0.29 (95% confidence interval: 0.18–0.42), respectively. The kappa for intraobserver agreement was 0.57 (95% confidence interval: 0.50–0.64) for lesion categorization and 0.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.43–0.74) for treatment decision. The mean percent agreement with the Reading Center for lesion categorization was 65.4%. Conclusions: There was moderate interobserver agreement for choroidal neovascularization categorization and poor agreement among Canadian retina specialists for decision to treat with photodynamic therapy. There was moderate intraobserver agreement for both treatment decision and lesion categorization. There was moderate agreement between observers and the Reading Center for angiographic choroidal neovascularization categorization. There was moderate interobserver agreement for choroidal neovascularization categorization and poor agreement among Canadian retina specialists for decision to treat with photodynamic therapy. There was moderate intraobserver agreement for both treatment decision and lesion categorization. There was moderate agreement between observers and the Reading Center for angiographic choroidal neovascularization categorization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".