A140 INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITY OF THE PARIS CLASSIFICATION FOR SUPERFICIAL GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT NEOPLASMS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Paris classification is an international classification system that characterizes the morphology of superficial gastrointestinal tract neoplasms. Given its ability to predict the risk of submucosal invasion, this tool plays an important role in the preliminary endoscopic assessment of early gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. Despite its international prevalence, there are no pooled reliability analyses to assess agreement amongst endoscopists using this classification system. Aims To systematically review and meta-analyze the interobserver reliability (IOR) of the Paris classification system. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA recommendations. A comprehensive literature query was conducted on biomedical databases through December 2020. Studies were included if they quantitively evaluated the IOR of the Paris classification with at least 5 endoscopists participating in the study cohort. Two authors independently screened studies and abstracted data using an a priori designed data collection form. We pooled the results of studies which provided IOR with kappa statistics and confidence intervals using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two study authors using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) tool. Results From an initial 1541 studies, 5 were included in the qualitative review and 3 reported data that allowed for a quantitative analysis of the primary outcome, representing a total of 28 endoscopists. All three of these studies were high quality. The IOR for the Paris classification amongst all endoscopists was 0.541 (95% CI, 0.466–0.617). There was no significant improvement (p=0.551) in the IOR of the Paris classification system following an educational training intervention (pre-education pooled kappa, 0.498; 95% CI, 0.429–0.567 compared to post-education pooled kappa, 0.530; 95% CI, 0.451–0.608). Conclusions Interobserver reliability of the Paris classification is moderate with no significant improvement following educational intervention. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.065 | 0.143 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".