Multirater Validation of Peripapillary Hyperreflective Ovoid Mass-like Structures (PHOMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peripapillary hyperreflective ovoid mass-like structures (PHOMS) are a new retinal optical coherence tomography (OCT) finding. The Optic Disc Drusen Studies Consortium had made recommendations to distinguish PHOMS from true optic disc drusen (ODD) in 2018. While publications on PHOMS have increased since then, the accuracy of the definition of PHOMS and reliability of detection is unknown. In this multi-rater study, we demonstrate that the 2018 definition of PHOMS resulted in a poor multi-rater kappa of 0.356. We performed a Delphi consensus process to develop a consistent and refined definition of PHOMS with clear principles around the nature of PHOMS and how they differ from normal anatomy. Fifty explanatory teaching slides, provided as supplementary material, allowed our expert group of raters to achieve a good level of agreement (kappa 0.701, 50 OCT scans, 21 raters). We recommend adopting the refined definition for PHOMS.
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 | 0.167 | 0.253 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".