Validity and Reliability of the Thrombolysis in Brain Infarction (TIBI) Flow Grades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
48 Background: In patients eligible for thrombolytic therapy, the TIBI grading system defines residual transcranial Doppler (TCD) flow signals at the site of clot location. In addition, TIBI flow grades correlate with angiography and predict short-term improvement following TPA therapy. The aim of this study was to develop a valid and reliable instrument to assess how accurately health professionals determine TIBI flow grades. Methods: Two expert sonographers developed a 60 question computerized examination of the 6 TIBI flow grades. Gold standard interpretation was determined by a consensus interpretation by a pool of expert sonographers. All items were equally weighted and written in a standard format. A computerized TIBI grading tutorial and standard interpretation rules were available for all test-takers. To assess content validity and reliability, a blinded panel of 3 experts independently took the examination. Inter-rater agreement was determined among experienced sonographers, stroke neurologists, and other health professionals (N=11). Results: Expert assessment of each test item measured objective congruence at 1.0, overall test validity coefficient of 0.996 (95%CI 0.993–0.997), and an item/TIBI flow grade validity coefficient of 0.992 (95%CI 0.996–0.997). Overall test and individual item reliability had coefficients of 0.98(95%CI 0.97–0.99) and 0.97 (95%CI 0.95–0.98, p<0.0001) respectively. Inter-rater agreement was 0.89 (coefficient of contingency) and 0.86 (kappa) for all participants. Kappa range included 0.98 for an experienced interpreter, 0.81–0.89 for stroke neurologists with beginner experience in TCD and 0.65 for those without previous TCD experience (66% of correct answers after 1 hour tutorial). Conclusions: Our computerized examination is a valid and reliable tool to assess an individuals ability to score TIBI flow grades. In addition, TIBI flow grade evaluation has a high degree of inter-rater reliability, even among those with limited experience in ultrasound.
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 | 0.014 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".