Interobserver Variability in Assessing Adequacy of the Squamous Component in Conventional Cervicovaginal Smears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the interobserver reproducibility of estimating the adequacy of the squamous component of conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) smears using traditional and newly proposed criteria. Forty conventional Pap smears with varying degrees of squamous cellularity were reviewed by 13 observers who evaluated adequacy (satisfactory vs unsatisfactory) based on the traditional criterion of estimating 10% slide coverage. After being introduced to the new criterion and the reference images, the observers reevaluated adequacy on the same set of smears, using the new criterion and the reference images. With the original criterion of 10% slide coverage, 15 smears had a unanimous designation; the overall kappa value was 0.49 (P < .001). With the newly proposed adequacy criterion and reference images, 17 smears had a unanimous designation; the overall kappa value was 0.60 (P < .001). The difference in the kappa correlation coefficients was statistically significant (P = .007). While traditional and newly proposed criteria resulted in fair interobserver agreement, it seemed that the newly proposed criterion, along with the use of reference images, for evaluating adequacy of the squamous component of conventional Pap smears results in better interobserver reproducibility.
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 | 0.033 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".