Interobserver Variability in the Computed Tomography Assessment of Pulmonary Injury and Tumor Recurrence After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the interobserver agreement of chest computed tomography (CT) findings in the diagnosis of expected changes and local recurrence after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with early-stage lung cancer or a single pulmonary metastasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 54 patients with early-stage lung cancer or pulmonary metastasis who were treated with SBRT from 2007 to 2015 were included. The exclusion criteria were patients who presented with pulmonary infection during follow-up and patients who underwent a single CT during follow-up. The imaging features on CT were assessed by 3 blinded radiologists at the following 2 time points after SBRT: (a) early follow-up and (b) late follow-up (≥6 mo). The radiologists classified the findings as expected changes after SBRT or recurrence. Interobserver agreement was assessed by kappa and Wilcoxon statistics. RESULTS: A total of 13 women and 41 men with a mean age of 75.3 (±8.9) years were selected. The total and per fraction SBRT doses were 54 Gy (interquartile range: 45 to 54) and 18 Gy (interquartile range: 15 to 18), respectively. All expected changes and findings suggestive of recurrence had an almost perfect agreement (κ>0.85) among readers, except for diffuse consolidation in the early period (κ=0.65). CONCLUSION: CT findings demonstrate high interobserver agreement for expected changes and for findings indicating recurrence after SBRT.
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 | 0.016 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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".