Effect of Training on Visual Identification of High Frequency Oscillations—A Delphi-Style Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the effect of a simple Delphi-method feedback on visual identification of high frequency oscillations (HFOs) in the ripple (80-250 Hz) band, and assessed the impact of this training intervention on the interrater reliability and generalizability of HFO evaluations. METHODS: We employed a morphology detector to identify potential HFOs at two thresholds and presented them to visual reviewers to assess the probability of each epoch containing an HFO. We recruited 19 board-certified epileptologists with various levels of experience to complete a series of HFO evaluations during three sessions. A Delphi-style intervention was used to provide feedback on the performance of each reviewer relative to their peers. A delayed-intervention paradigm was used, in which reviewers received feedback either before or after the second session. ANOVAs were used to assess the effect of the intervention on the reviewers' evaluations. Generalizability theory was used to assess the interrater reliability before and after the intervention. RESULTS: = 0.414). Following the intervention, the projected number of reviewers required to achieve strong generalizability decreased from 35 to 16. SIGNIFICANCE: This study shows a robust effect of a Delphi-style intervention on the interrater variability, reliability, and generalizability of HFO evaluations. The observed decreases in HFO marking discrepancies across 14 of the 15 reviewers are encouraging: they are necessarily associated with an increase in interrater reliability, and therefore with a corresponding decrease in the number of reviewers required to achieve strong generalizability. Indeed, the reliability of all reviewers following the intervention was similar to that of experienced reviewers prior to intervention. Therefore, a Delphi-style intervention could be implemented either to sufficiently train any reviewer, or to further refine the interrater reliability of experienced reviewers. In either case, a Delphi-style intervention would help facilitate the standardization of HFO evaluations and its implementation in clinical care.
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 | 0.018 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".