Interobserver Variability of Hip Dysplasia Indices on Sweep Ultrasound for Novices, Experts, and Artificial Intelligence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultrasound for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is challenging for nonexperts to perform and interpret. Recording "sweep" images allows more complete hip assessment, suitable for automation by artificial intelligence (AI), but reliability has not been established. We assessed agreement between readers of varying experience and a commercial AI algorithm, in DDH detection from infant hip ultrasound sweeps. METHODS: We selected a full spectrum of poor-to-excellent quality images and normal to severe dysplasia, in 240 hips (120 single 2-dimensional images, 120 sweeps). For 12 readers (radiologists, sonographers, clinicians and researchers; 3 were DDH subspecialists), and a ultrasound-FDA-cleared AI software package (Medo Hip), we calculated interobserver reliability for alpha angle measurements by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1) and for DDH classification by Randolph Kappa. RESULTS: Alpha angle reliability was high for AI versus subspecialists (ICC=0.87 for sweeps, 0.90 for single images). For DDH diagnosis from sweeps, agreement was high between subspecialists (kappa=0.72), and moderate for nonsubspecialists (0.54) and AI (0.47). Agreement was higher for single images (kappa=0.80, 0.66, 0.49). AI reliability deteriorated more than human readers for the poorest-quality images. The agreement of radiologists and clinicians with the accepted standard, while still high, was significantly poorer for sweeps than 2D images (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In a challenging exercise representing the wide spectrum of image quality and reader experience seen in real-world hip ultrasound, agreement on DDH diagnosis from easily obtained sweeps was only slightly lower than from single images, likely because of the additional step of selecting the best image. AI performed similarly to a nonsubspecialist human reader but was more affected by low-quality images.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".