Interobserver Agreement in the Application of Levels of Evidence to Scientific Papers in the American Volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since January 2003, all clinical scientific articles published in the American volume of The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS-A) have included a level-of-evidence rating. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the interobserver agreement among reviewers, with varying levels of epidemiology training, in categorizing the levels of evidence of these clinical studies. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive clinical papers published in the American volume of JBJS were identified by a computerized search of the table of contents from January 2003 through June 2003. Each paper was blinded so that only the title, abstract (without the level of evidence designated), and methods section were provided to the reviewers. The papers were coded and were randomly organized in a binder. Six surgeons graded each blinded paper for (1) the type of study (therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic test, or economic or decision analysis), (2) the level of evidence (on a scale of I through V), and (3) the subcategory within the particular level of evidence. Three surgeons were members of JBJS American Editorial Board, two surgeons were reviewers for JBJS-A, and one surgeon was an active researcher not formally associated with JBJS-A. The reviewers did not receive any formal training in the application of the classification system, but each was provided with a detailed description of the classification system used by JBJS-A. Intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were determined for the reviewers' agreement regarding the type of study, level of evidence, and subcategory within the level of evidence. RESULTS: The majority (69%) of the fifty-one included articles were studies of therapy, and 57% of the studies constituted Level-IV evidence. The intraclass correlation coefficients for the agreement among all reviewers with regard to the study type, level of evidence, and subcategory within the level of evidence ranged from 0.61 to 0.75. Reviewers trained in epidemiology demonstrated greater agreement (range in intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.99 to 1.0), across all aspects of the classification system, than did reviewers who were not trained in epidemiology (range in intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.60 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that epidemiology and non-epidemiology-trained reviewers can apply the levels-of-evidence guide to published studies with acceptable interobserver agreement. The validity of this system remains a question for future research.
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 | 0.528 | 0.800 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".