Inter-rater and Intra-rater Reliability in the Radiographic Diagnosis of Growth Arrest in Paediatric Physeal Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fractures through the physis account for 18–30% of paediatric fractures and can lead to growth arrest in 5–10% of these cases. Long-term radiographic follow-up is usually necessary to monitor for signs of growth arrest at the affected physis. Given plain radiographs of a physeal fracture obtained throughout patient follow-up, different surgeons may hold different opinions about whether or not early growth arrest has occurred despite using identical radiographs to guide decision-making. This study aims to assess the inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of early growth arrest diagnosis among orthopaedic surgeons given a set of identical plain radiographs. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients aged 2–18 years previously treated for a physeal fracture at a paediatric tertiary care hospital between 2011 and 2018. De-identified anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of 39 patients from the date of injury and minimum one-year post-injury were administered in a survey to international paediatric orthopaedic surgeons. Each surgeon was asked whether they would diagnose the patient with growth arrest based on the radiographs provided. Surgeons were asked to complete this process again two weeks after the initial review, but using identical shuffled radiographs. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was calculated using appropriate kappa statistics. Results A total of 11 paediatric orthopaedic surgeons completed the first round of the survey, and 9 of these 11 completed the second round. The inter-rater reliability for the first round was 0.22 [95% CI (0.06, 0.35)] and 0.21 [95% CI (0.02, 0.32)] for the second round. The average kappa for intra-rater reliability was − 0.05 [95% CI (− 0.31, 0.21)]. Comparison by injury side showed no significant variation in diagnosis { p = 0.509, OR = 0.90, [95% CI (0.67, 1.22)]}, while comparison by location of injury varied significantly ( p = 0.003). Conclusions Radiographic diagnosis of growth arrest among paediatric orthopaedic surgeons demonstrated ‘fair’ inter-rater agreement and no intra-rater agreement, suggesting critical differences in identifying growth arrest on plain radiographs. Further research is necessary to develop an improved diagnostic approach for growth arrest among orthopaedic surgeons. Level of Evidence Diagnostic level III.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".