Reliability Assessment of International Grading System for Vesicoureteral Reflux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The International Reflux Committee proposed a grading system for vesicoureteral reflux in 1985 which has been used extensively in everyday practice and research studies. Despite widespread use, based mainly on face validity, the interrater and intrarater reliability of this tool are not known. A tool cannot be considered valid unless it is reliable. Therefore, we estimated the interrater and intrarater reliability of the international grading system for vesicoureteral reflux. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of 28 voiding cystourethrogram studies were selected. The images were assembled in an electronic presentation in random fashion. Four pediatric radiologists, 5 pediatric urologists and 4 senior urology residents graded the studies. The images were then shuffled in a random fashion and re-rated after 7 days (total 728 observations). Cohen weighted kappa statistics were used to determine interrater and intrarater reliability. Subgroup analysis was then performed comparing the variability among the 3 groups of raters and different grades. RESULTS: The average interrater reliability was 0.53 (95% CI 0.52-0.55, p <0.0001). Agreement in subgroups was 0.61 for urologists, 0.59 for residents and 0.56 for radiologists. The lowest agreement was shown in grade III (0.36) and the highest in grade I (0.98). The intrarater reliability was 0.86 (95% CI 0.77-0.95, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The international grading system for vesicoureteral reflux shows low interrater reliability for moderate degrees of vesicoureteral reflux whereas the intrarater reliability is high. Modification of this system may improve its 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 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".