Evaluating Classification Consistency of Oral Lesion Images for Use in an Image Classification Teaching Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A web-based image classification tool (DiLearn) was developed to facilitate active learning in the oral health profession. Students engage with oral lesion images using swipe gestures to classify each image into pre-determined categories (e.g., left for refer and right for no intervention). To assemble the training modules and to provide feedback to students, DiLearn requires each oral lesion image to be classified, with various features displayed in the image. The collection of accurate meta-information is a crucial step for enabling the self-directed active learning approach taken in DiLearn. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the classification consistency of features in oral lesion images by experts and students for use in the learning tool. Twenty oral lesion images from DiLearn's image bank were classified by three oral lesion experts and two senior dental hygiene students using the same rubric containing eight features. Classification agreement among and between raters were evaluated using Fleiss' and Cohen's Kappa. Classification agreement among the three experts ranged from identical (Fleiss' Kappa = 1) for "clinical action", to slight agreement for "border regularity" (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.136), with the majority of categories having fair to moderate agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.332-0.545). Inclusion of the two student raters with the experts yielded fair to moderate overall classification agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.224-0.554), with the exception of "morphology". The feature of clinical action could be accurately classified, while other anatomical features indirectly related to diagnosis had a lower classification consistency. The findings suggest that one oral lesion expert or two student raters can provide fairly consistent meta-information for selected categories of features implicated in the creation of image classification tasks in DiLearn.
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 | 0.027 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".