Reliability among central readers in the evaluation of endoscopic findings from patients with Crohn's disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD) are commonly used to assess Crohn's disease (CD) activity; however, neither instrument has been fully validated. We assessed intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of these indices. DESIGN: Video recordings of colonoscopies obtained from 50 patients with CD who participated in an induction trial of a biological therapy were triplicated and reviewed in random order by four central readers. Data were used to assess intra-rater and inter-rater reliability for CDEIS, SES-CD and a global evaluation of lesion severity (GELS). Subsequently, readers participated in a consensus process that identified common sources of disagreement. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for intra-rater reliability for CDEIS, SES-CD and GELS (95% CIs) were 0.89 (0.86 to 0.93), 0.91 (0.89 to 0.95) and 0.81 (0.77 to 0.89), respectively, with standard error of measurement (SEM) of 2.10, 2.42 and 1.15. The corresponding ICCs for inter-rater reliability were 0.71 (0.63 to 0.76), 0.83 (0.75 to 0.88) and 0.62 (0.52 to 0.70), with SEM of 3.42, 3.07 and 1.63, respectively. Correlation between CDEIS and GELS was 0.75, between SES-CD and GELS was 0.74 and between CDEIS and SES-CD was 0.92. The most common sources of disagreement were interpretation of superficial ulceration, definition of disease site at the ileocolonic anastomosis, assessment of anorectal lesions and grading severity of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: Central reading of CDEIS and SES-CD had 'substantial' to 'almost perfect' intra-rater and inter-rater reliability; however, the responsiveness of these instruments is yet to be determined. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01466374.
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 | 0.076 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".