Interobserver Agreement between On-Call Radiology Resident and General Radiologist Interpretations of CT Pulmonary Angiograms and CT Venograms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the interobserver agreement (IOA) between the initial radiology resident and the final staff radiologist reports of combined computed tomographic pulmonary angiograms (CTPA) and computed tomographic venograms (CTV) performed during on-call hours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval by the institutional review board was obtained. Six-hundred and ninety-six consecutive studies (CTPA or CTPA with CTV) performed during on-call hours and interpreted by 30 residents were identified. Radiology residents' reports were compared to the final staff reports. Three tests outcomes were considered (positive, P; negative, N; indeterminate, I). Discordant cases were reviews by a chest radiologist. RESULTS: CTPAs were reported by staff radiologists as positive for pulmonary embolism (PE) in 18% (126/694), with a kappa of 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.86) with 3 outcomes (P, N, I), and a kappa of 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.94) with 2 outcomes (P, N). Regarding PE location, good concordance was observed for positive studies, with a kappa of 0.86 (95% CI 0.78 - 0.95). CTVs were reported as positive by staff radiologists in 8.5% (33/388), with a kappa of 0.66 (95% CI 0.55-0.77) with 3 outcomes (P, N, I), and a kappa of 0.89 (95% CI 0.8-1.0) with 2 outcomes (P, N). The IOA between residents and staff radiologists increased with increasing residency year level for CTPAs, but did not for CTVs. CONCLUSIONS: Very good and good IOA were observed between resident and staff radiologist interpretations for CTPA and CTV, respectively, with tendency towards improved IOA as residency level of training increased for CTPA, but not for CTV.
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 | 0.021 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".