An Assessment of the Reliability of the Enneking and Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini Classifications for Staging of Primary Spinal Tumors by the Spine Oncology Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Reliability analysis based on expert panel case series review and grading per the Enneking and Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini classification systems. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reliability of the Enneking and Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini classification systems. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Enneking and Weinstein-Boriani-Biagini (WBB) classifications were developed to stage and facilitate treatment planning in patients with primary spine tumors. To date, their interobserver and intraobserver reliability has not been assessed-a fundamental step in facilitating broader clinical and research use. METHODS: Clinical information, imaging studies, and biopsy results were compiled from 15 selected patients with primary spinal tumors. Eighteen spine surgeons independently estimated and scored the cases for Enneking grade, tumor and metastasis categories, Enneking stage, Enneking-recommended surgical margin, WBB zones and layers, and WBB-recommended surgical procedures, with a second assessment performed after random resorting of cases. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of each category were assessed by percent agreement or proportional overlap. The Fleiss, Cohen, and Mezzich kappa statistics (kappa) were then applied, determined by the type of variable analyzed. RESULTS: The kappa statistics for interobserver reliability were 0.82, 0.22, 0.00, 0.57, 0.47, 0.31, 0.58, and 0.54 for the fields of Enneking grade, tumor and metastasis categories, Enneking stage, Enneking-recommended surgical margin, WBB zones and layers, and WBB-recommended surgical procedures, respectively. The kappa statistics for intraobserver reliability were 0.97, 0.53, 0.47, 0.82, 0.67, 0.63, 0.79, and 0.79 for the same respective fields. According to Landis and Koch, the ranges of kappa values of 0.00 to 0.20, 0.21 to 0.40, 0.41 to 0.60, 0.61 to 0.80, and >0.80 imply slight, fair, moderate, substantial, and near-perfect agreement, respectively. CONCLUSION: Results indicate moderate interobserver reliability and substantial and near-perfect intraobserver reliability for both the Enneking and WBB classification in terms of staging and guidance for treatment, despite a less than moderate interobserver reliability in interpreting the Enneking local tumor extension and WBB sector. Before incorporating the classifications in the clinical practice and research studies, further work is required to investigate the validity of the classifications.
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 | 0.056 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".