MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013347747 · doi:10.2196/16018

Intra-Rater and Inter-Rater Reliability of Tongue Coating Diagnosis in Traditional Chinese Medicine Using Smartphones: Quasi-Delphi Study

2020· article· en· W3013347747 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhi Chun Wang, Shiping Zhang, Pong C. Yuen, Kam Wa Chan, Yi Yi Chan, Chun Hoi Cheung, Chi Ho Chow, Ka Kit Chua, Jun Hu, Zhichao Hu, Beini Lao, Chun Chuen Leung, Hong Li, Linda L. D. Zhong, Xusheng Liu, Yulong Liu, Zhenjie Liu, Xin Lun, Wei Mo, Sheung Yuen Siu, Zhoujian Xiong, Wing‐Fai Yeung, Run Yun Zhang, Xuebin Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Technology SydneyHong Kong Baptist University
KeywordsTongueReliability (semiconductor)Delphi methodMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is a growing trend in the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and telemedicine, especially during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. Tongue diagnosis is an important component of TCM, but also plays a role in Western medicine, for example in dermatology. However, the procedure of obtaining tongue images has not been standardized and the reliability of tongue diagnosis by smartphone tongue images has yet to be evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The first objective of this study was to develop an operating classification scheme for tongue coating diagnosis. The second and main objective of this study was to determine the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of tongue coating diagnosis using the operating classification scheme. METHODS: An operating classification scheme for tongue coating was developed using a stepwise approach and a quasi-Delphi method. First, tongue images (n=2023) were analyzed by 2 groups of assessors to develop the operating classification scheme for tongue coating diagnosis. Based on clinicians' (n=17) own interpretations as well as their use of the operating classification scheme, the results of tongue diagnosis on a representative tongue image set (n=24) were compared. After gathering consensus for the operating classification scheme, the clinicians were instructed to use the scheme to assess tongue features of their patients under direct visual inspection. At the same time, the clinicians took tongue images of the patients with smartphones and assessed tongue features observed in the smartphone image using the same classification scheme. The intra-rater agreements of these two assessments were calculated to determine which features of tongue coating were better retained by the image. Using the finalized operating classification scheme, clinicians in the study group assessed representative tongue images (n=24) that they had taken, and the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of their assessments was evaluated. RESULTS: Intra-rater agreement between direct subject inspection and tongue image inspection was good to very good (Cohen κ range 0.69-1.0). Additionally, when comparing the assessment of tongue images on different days, intra-rater reliability was good to very good (κ range 0.7-1.0), except for the color of the tongue body (κ=0.22) and slippery tongue fur (κ=0.1). Inter-rater reliability was moderate for tongue coating (Gwet AC2 range 0.49-0.55), and fair for color and other features of the tongue body (Gwet AC2=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our study has shown that tongue images collected via smartphone contain some reliable features, including tongue coating, that can be used in mHealth analysis. Our findings thus support the use of smartphones in telemedicine for detecting changes in tongue coating.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.088
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0880.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicTraditional Chinese Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207