A distributed system improves inter-observer and AI concordance in annotating interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Histologic examination of interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy (IFTA) is critical to determine the extent of irreversible kidney injury in renal disease. The current clinical standard involves pathologist's visual assessment of IFTA, which is prone to inter-observer variability. To address this diagnostic variability, we designed two case studies (CSs), including seven pathologists, using HistomicsTK- a distributed system developed by Kitware Inc. (Clifton Park, NY). Twenty-five whole slide images (WSIs) were classified into a training set of 21 and a validation set of four. The training set was composed of seven unique subsets, each provided to an individual pathologist along with four common WSIs from the validation set. In CS 1, all pathologists individually annotated IFTA in their respective slides. These annotations were then used to train a deep learning algorithm to computationally segment IFTA. In CS 2, manual and computational annotations from CS 1 were first reviewed by the annotators to improve concordance of IFTA annotation. Both the manual and computational annotation processes were then repeated as in CS1. The inter-observer concordance in the validation set was measured by Krippendorff's alpha (KA). The KA for the seven pathologists in CS1 was 0.62 with CI [0.57, 0.67], and after reviewing each other's annotations in CS2, 0.66 with CI [0.60, 0.72]. The respective CS1 and CS2 KA were 0.58 with CI [0.52, 0.64] and 0.63 with CI [0.56, 0.69] when including the deep learner as an eighth annotator. These results suggest that our designed annotation framework refines agreement of spatial annotation of IFTA and demonstrates a human-AI approach to significantly improve the development of computational models.
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 | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".