Augmenting inter‐rater concordance of radiologic extranodal extension in <scp>HPV</scp> ‐positive oropharyngeal carcinoma: A multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess intra- and inter-institutional concordance and identify methods to increase precision in radiologic extranodal extension (rENE) ascertainment in HPV+ oropharyngeal carcinoma. METHODS: Six radiologists, blinded to clinical outcomes, from three centers assessed rENE in two phases: Phase-I (20 cases) utilized each individual's a priori appreciation of the literature. Phase-II (30 additional cases) was performed after deliberating experience and consolidating operating definitions. Intra- and inter-institutional Kappa were calculated at >50% and >75% certainty levels, respectively. RESULTS: The Phase-I intra-institutional kappa was 0.76, 0.32, and 0.44 at >50% certainty and improved to 0.89, 0.61, and 0.66 at >75% certainty. Inter-institutional Fleiss' kappa also improved with higher certainty (from 0.40 to 0.57, p = 0.039). The Phase-II inter-rater kappa was significantly higher than Phase-I at the same certainty level (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A learning curve exists for rENE assessment. Strategies to augment reliability include high certainty for declaration, consolidated operating definitions, and sharing experience among radiologists.
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 | 0.095 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".