Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of anal intraepithelial neoplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anal carcinoma incidence is increasing, and is highest among men with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who have sex with men. Anal carcinoma and anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) are ascertained on tissue histology, but requires invasive procedures. Screening for AIN using anal cytology was suggested. The authors evaluated agreement on cytologic and biopsy specimens from HIV-positive men undergoing anal carcinoma screening. METHODS: One hundred twenty-nine HIV-positive men with a history of anal-receptive intercourse underwent anal cytology, anoscopy, and biopsy. Four pathologists independently assessed cytology and biopsy specimens and reached consensus for discordant cases. RESULTS: Each pathologist evaluated 120 cytology and 155 biopsy specimens. The weighted kappa value for overall agreement was 0.54 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.59) for cytology specimens and 0.59 (95%CI, 0.55-0.63) for biopsy specimens. The median kappa values for pairwise agreement among pathologists and for agreement with consensus were, respectively, 0.69 and 0.77 for cytology and 0.66 and 0.75 for biopsy. At least 3 pathologists were in agreement for 92 (76.7%) cytology and 134 (86.5%) biopsy specimens. Reliability for the Bethesda classification system was at least moderate, except for the cytologic category of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (kappa = 0.12). Fourteen of 29 (48.3%) cytology specimens and 36 of 47 (76.6%) biopsy specimens with consensus interpretation of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL) were interpreted originally as HSIL by > or = 3 pathologists. The kappa value for agreement with consensus distinguishing HSIL from non-HSIL ranged from 0.55 to 0.88 for cytology specimens and from 0.76 to 0.94 for biopsy specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Agreement for cytologic and biopsy interpretations was generally at least moderate. Nevertheless, these results supported the need for disease indicators with greater reliability.
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 | 0.083 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".