Human‐to‐<scp>AI</scp> Interrater Agreement for Lung Ultrasound Scoring in <scp>COVID</scp>‐19 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has sparked significant interest during COVID-19. LUS is based on the detection and analysis of imaging patterns. Vertical artifacts and consolidations are some of the recognized patterns in COVID-19. However, the interrater reliability (IRR) of these findings has not been yet thoroughly investigated. The goal of this study is to assess IRR in LUS COVID-19 data and determine how many LUS videos and operators are required to obtain a reliable result. METHODS: A total of 1035 LUS videos from 59 COVID-19 patients were included. Videos were randomly selected from a dataset of 1807 videos and scored by six human operators (HOs). The videos were also analyzed by artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Fleiss' kappa coefficient results are presented, evaluated at both the video and prognostic levels. RESULTS: Findings show a stable agreement when evaluating a minimum of 500 videos. The statistical analysis illustrates that, at a video level, a Fleiss' kappa coefficient of 0.464 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.455-0.473) and 0.404 (95% CI = 0.396-0.412) is obtained for pairs of HOs and for AI versus HOs, respectively. At prognostic level, a Fleiss' kappa coefficient of 0.505 (95% CI = 0.448-0.562) and 0.506 (95% CI = 0.458-0.555) is obtained for pairs of HOs and for AI versus HOs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: To examine IRR and obtain a reliable evaluation, a minimum of 500 videos are recommended. Moreover, the employed AI algorithms achieve results that are comparable with HOs. This research further provides a methodology that can be useful to benchmark future LUS studies.
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 | 0.031 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".