Reproducibility of the scleroderma pattern assessed by wide-field capillaroscopy in subjects suffering from Raynaud’s phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this work was to study inter- and intra-observer agreement for the diagnosis of scleroderma pattern by wide-field capillaroscopy. Methods: Images were taken from 50 patients known to have SSc and 50 controls consulting for RP who did not have SSc. These images were rated simultaneously by 11 experienced vascular medicine physicians as scleroderma pattern or not. Two weeks later, 7 of the 11 observers again rated the same images. Results: Inter-observer agreement was almost perfect between the 11 observers (κ 0.86 ± 0.01), and the proportion of concordant observations was 79% (70-87). When each observer was compared with the reference, agreement was also almost perfect: κ coefficient 0.92 ± 0.03 and proportion of concordant observations 79% (70-87). Intra-observer agreement was also almost perfect: median κ coefficient 0.94 (0.78-0.96) and median proportion of concordant observations 97% (89-98). Conclusion: Excellent inter- and intra-observer agreement was obtained in experienced vascular physicians for the diagnosis of capillaroscopic landscape by wide-field nailfold capillary microscopy.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".