Toronto Facial Grading System: Interobserver reliability
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Toronto Facial Grading System (TFGS) is an observer scale for rating facial nerve dysfunction. The TFGS scores aspects of resting symmetry, symmetry of voluntary movement, and synkinesis for each division of the face (subscores) and then provides calculated total scores and an overall composite score of facial function. The developers of the scale have validated its sensitivity for identifying small changes in facial dysfunction and the independence of the different components measured. Herein we report our results in a study of interobserver reliability using the TFGS. Twenty-five patients from the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary Facial Nerve Center with varying degrees of facial paresis, paralysis, and synkinesis were videotaped, and the video recordings were scored by 5 independent observers using the TFGS. Intraclass correlation coefficients (kappa) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for subscores and for each total and composite score. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.59 to 0.85, all considered substantial to near-perfect agreement between observers. We believe the TFGS is superior to other scales by virtue of its sensitivity, comprehensiveness, ease of use, and interobserver reliability. The TFGS presently appears to be the best option in those situations in which accurate and precise documentation of facial function is required.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 it