Validity of laryngomalacia classification systems: A multi‐institutional agreement study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the agreement of paediatric otolaryngologists on classifying laryngomalacia (LM). DESIGN: Intra- and interobserver agreement study of two classification systems. SETTING: Three tertiary referral paediatric centres. PARTICIPANTS: Three paediatric otolaryngologists, who were blinded to any clinical details, interpreted the videos of children diagnosed with LM using the Holinger and Olney classifications independently. They rated the videos twice with a washout period of at least 2 weeks. THE MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter- and intra-observer agreement measured by overall Fleiss kappa and unweighted Cohen's kappa coefficients. The secondary outcome measures were inter- and intra-observer agreement on the individual anatomical subunits of the supraglottis affected by LM, characterised by the subcategories of the classifications. RESULTS: Video records of infants and children <18 years who had an endoscopic diagnosis of LM from 2012 to 2017 were retrospectively chosen for inclusion (n = 73). The overall Fleiss kappa coefficient was 0.25 (95% CI 0.18-0.32) amongst the raters using the Holinger classification and 0.31 (95% CI 0.21-0.42) for the Olney classification. Intra-observer agreement using the Holinger classification was 0.30 (95% CI 0.18-0.42), 0.62 (95% CI 0.23-0.85) and 0.84 (95% CI 0.75-0.94], whilst the Olney classification yielded values of 0.41 (95% CI 0.26-0.56), 0.51 (95% CI 0.29-0.63) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.48-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: The agreement on types of LM between expert observers is modest using the Holinger and Olney classifications. This has significant implications for accurately diagnosing LM and exposes potential obstacles against credible pooling of data and extrapolation of information.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".