MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506751411 · doi:10.1155/2011/302382

Conventional Versus Rosemont Endoscopic Ultrasound Criteria for Chronic Pancreatitis: Comparing Interobserver Reliability and Intertest Agreement

2011· article· en· W1506751411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruce Kalmin, Brenda J. Hoffman, Robert H. Hawes, Joseph Romagnuolo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMcNemar's testMedicineKappaCohen's kappaPancreatitisEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyEndoscopic ultrasoundNuclear medicineRadiologySurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Rosemont criteria (RC) were recently proposed by expert consensus to standardize endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features and thresholds for diagnosing chronic pancreatitis (CP); however, they are cumbersome and are not validated. OBJECTIVE: To determine interobserver agreement between RC and conventional criteria (CC), and to assess intertest agreement in the diagnosis of CP. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent EUS for abdominal pain or pancreatitis were retrospectively reviewed. Anonymized images were independently chosen as best representations of the pancreatic body and reviewed by three experts who recorded the presence of CC and RC features. Agreement (proportion and kappa statistic) between CC and RC was calculated. Interobserver agreement within the CC and RC was assessed. Secondary comparisons with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were made where available. RESULTS: Using CC, 60 readings (83.3%) were negative for CP, while 12 readings (16.7%) were positive. Using RC, 59 readings (81.9%) were negative for CP, while 13 (18.1%) were positive. The weighted kappa for interobserver agreement for CC (four categories: normal⁄low probability, indeterminate, high probability or calcific) was 0.50, with 80.0% overall agreement, versus 0.27 and 68.1% for the four RC categories (normal, indeterminate, suggestive of and consistent with). Agreement on a positive diagnosis with CC was 86.1% (P=0.38 [McNemar's exact test]), with a kappa of 0.47; for RC, agreement was lower at 80.6% (P=0.016 [McNemar's exact test]), with a kappa of 0.38. For patients who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n=12), false-negative and false-positive rates between CC and RC did not appear to be different. CONCLUSIONS: The RC do not appear to achieve the goals of improving accuracy and interobserver agreement for diagnosing CP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
DomainMethods
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207