MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106315185 · doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.12.001

Inter- and Intraexaminer Reliability in Identifying and Classifying Degenerative Marrow (Modic) Changes on Lumbar Spine Magnetic Resonance Scans

2007· article· en· W2106315185 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia Peterson, Brian Gatterman, J.C. Carter, B. Kim Humphreys, Alexandra Weibel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Memorial Chiropractic College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModic changesMedicineKappaMagnetic resonance imagingCohen's kappaLow back painLumbarSagittal planeReliability (semiconductor)Lumbar vertebraeContingency tableNuclear medicineLumbar spineRadiologySurgeryPathologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Signal intensity changes noted on magnetic resonance imaging scans in degenerated disks and adjacent bone marrow have been described and labeled "Modic" changes. Three types are identified, with type 1 being linked to low back pain. This study reports on the reliability of identifying and categorizing Modic marrow changes as would be done in the normal course of clinical practice. METHODS: Fifty-one lumbar spine sagittal magnetic resonance imaging scans of adult male patients older than 40 years were used. Two radiologists independently read each case at 2 different periods; scans were reordered for the second reading. The radiologists recorded the presence or absence of Modic changes anywhere in the lumbar spine for each case and classified each one as type 1, type 2, or type 3, and the level or levels where they were noted. The kappa statistic was used to evaluate inter- and intraexaminer agreement overall and by disk level. Percent agreement was also calculated. RESULTS: The overall kappa value for the interexaminer agreement of diagnosing the presence/absence of Modic changes for the entire lumbar spine as well as classifying them when present was kappa = 0.52 (moderate) with 71% agreement. At the L4 through 5 level, the kappa value was 0.81 (substantial) with 92% agreement, and at the L5 through S1 level, the kappa value was 0.58 (upper moderate) with 76% agreement. The L3 through L4 level had a kappa value of 0.66 (strong) but was considered "unstable" because of the lack of variability within the cells of the contingency table. The intraexaminer reliability gave a kappa value of 0.71 (strong) (82% agreement) for examiner 1 and a kappa value of 0.87 (almost perfect) (92%) for examiner 2. CONCLUSIONS: The Modic classification system shows moderate to almost perfect inter- and intraexaminer reliability in this study, simulating the methods of diagnosis used in clinical/radiological practice. The results of studies using the Modic system before investigations of its reliability can be viewed with more confidence, and future studies can continue to evaluate the link with patient symptoms and treatment outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.307
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.077 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manipulative and Physiological TherapeuticsSame topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207