Reliability of ultrasound imaging of pelvic floor morphology and function among females who have undergone pelvic radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the intra- and inter-rater reliability of two-dimensional (2D) transperineal ultrasound imaging (USI) measures of bladder wall thickness (BWT), urethral length (UL), and parameters related to levator plate length (LP) and transient changes in LP during pelvic floor muscle (PFM) contraction, and on Valsalva in women who received radiation therapy (RT) for treatment of pelvic cancer. METHODS: Twenty women with a history of RT for the treatment of pelvic cancer were assessed independently by two raters on the same day. Five outcomes were assessed for reliability: BWT, UL, and LP at rest (LP-R), during a maximal voluntary contraction of the PFMs (LP-MVC), and during a maximal-effort Valsalva maneuver (LP-MVM). Reliability was determined using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman analyses. Measurement error was determined using standard error of the measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable difference. RESULTS: Intra-rater reliability was very good for LP-R, LP-MVC, LP-MVM, and UL (ICC: 0.97 [0.93-0.99], 0.95 [0.88-0.98], 0.84 [0.59-0.94], and 0.96 [0.89-0.98], respectively). Inter-rater reliability was very good for LP-R (ICC: 0.82 [0.55-0.93]), and good for LP-MVC, LP-MVM, and UL (ICC: 0.79 [0.46-0.92], 0.79 [0.49-0.92], and 0.75 [0.36-0.90], respectively). BWT had poor intra- and inter-rater reliability. The variability between measurements was the smallest for LP-R, LP-MVC, and UL for intra-rater assessments, and for LP-R and UL for inter-rater assessments. SEM values for intra-rater assessments were LP-R: 1.5 mm, LP-MVC: 1.84 mm, LP-MVM: 4.33 mm, and UL: 1.16 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Although these results support the reliability of 2D-transperineal USI for the evaluation of UL and PFM parameters, they do not support its use for the assessment of BWT.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".