A quantitative definition of scaphoid union: determining the inter-rater reliability of two techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite extensive literature supporting the use of computerized tomography (CT) scans in evaluating scaphoid fractures, there has not been a consensus on the methodology for defining and quantifying union. The purpose of this study was to test the inter-observer reliability of two methods of quantifying scaphoid union. METHODS: The CT scans of 50 non-operatively treated scaphoid fractures were reviewed by four blinded observers. Each was asked to classify union into one of three categories, united, partially united, or tenuously united, based on their general impression. Each reviewer then carefully analyzed each CT slice and quantified union based on two methods, the mean percentage union and the weighted mean percentage union. The estimated percentage of scaphoid union for each scan was recorded, and inter-observer reliability for both methods was assessed using a Bland-Altman plot to calculate the 95% limits of agreement. Kappa statistic was used to measure the degree of agreement for the categorical assessment of union. RESULTS: There was very little difference in the percentage of union calculated between the two methods (mean difference between the two methods was 1.2 ± 4.1%), with each reviewer demonstrating excellent agreement between the two methods based on the Bland-Altman plot. The kappa score indicated very good agreement (Κ = 0.80) between the consultant hand surgeon and the musculoskeletal radiologist, and good agreement (Κ = 0.62) between the consultant hand surgeon and the hand fellow for the categorical assessment of union. CONCLUSIONS: This study describes two methods of quantifying and defining scaphoid union, both with a high inter-rater reliability. This indicates that either method can be reliably used, making it an important tool for both for clinical use and research purposes in future studies of scaphoid fractures, particularly those which are using union or time to union as their endpoint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, level III.
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 | 0.105 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".