Individual patient variation and inter‐rater reliability of lower calyceal infundibular width on routine intravenous pyelography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three papers in this section all relate, directly or indirectly, to minimally invasive procedures. When John Wickham coined this phrase several years ago, it was not possible to predict how widely used it would become, and how relevant to the future not only of urology, but of surgery in general. Obviously, minimally invasive techniques are not only used in the upper urinary tract, but also in most other parts of the urinary tract. There have been many advances in recent years, but we acknowledge John Wickham as a very important founding father. OBJECTIVE To standardise infundibular width (IFW) measurement, to determine patient variability, and to determine inter‐rater variability on intravenous pyelography (IVP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Fifty outpatient IVP films were randomly drawn from two hospitals between 1 July 1998 and 31 August 1999, and examined to measure the lower calyceal IFW on the 5, 10 and 20 min films with compression, and after voiding. Kidneys with previous renal surgery, hydronephrosis or renal anatomical anomalies were excluded; in all, 81 kidneys from 50 patients were examined. The IFW was measured at the narrowest point along the infundibulum. All 50 films were then reviewed by two urologists unaware of their origin, to determine the inter‐rater reliability of the infundibular measurements. RESULTS Analysis of variance ( anova ) with posthoc analysis showed a significant difference in IFW at each phase of the IVP (repeated measures anova , P < 0.001). The mean (95% confidence interval) IFW was greatest on the compression film, at 4.4 (2.6) mm, and least on the postvoid film, at 1.6 (2.1) mm. Overall inter‐rater reliability was 0.9780 (intraclass correlation coefficient), and the Pearson correlation between each rater for the IFW at each phase of the IVP was ≥ 0.886. CONCLUSIONS There is wide variability in lower calyceal IFW among the various IVP films in a given study. Thus any predictive value of the IFW must be standardized for the timing and IVP film type (compression, postvoid, etc.). The inter‐rater reliability of IFW is high, suggesting that if used correctly it may be more useful in predicting the outcome after shock wave lithotripsy.
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 | 0.025 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".