E-140 Novel grading scale for embolization of middle meningeal artery for chronic subdural hematoma- inter-rater reliability study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background and Purpose</h3> Embolization of middle meningeal artery (EMMA) is a relatively new treatment for chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). To date, an objective method that assesses or describes the extent of EMMA for the treatment of CSDH does not exist. Recently, the concept of a novel grading scale for EMMA in patients with CSDH has emerged. However, this has not been applied to a clinical case setting and inter-rater reliability has not yet been studied. The purpose of this study was to validate the grading scale in clinical practice and to assess for inter-rater reliability. <h3>Materials and Methods</h3> We retrospectively examined consecutive patients who underwent EMMA for CSDH. Patients were included if the whole head angiogram from common carotid, as well as external carotid arteries before and after EMMA were available in the arterial, capillary as well as venous phases. Two independent readers, each with more than 5 years of experience in independent practice, assessed the angiograms for the grading of EMMA and assigned a score ranging between 0 to 3. The grading score between the two readers were compared using Cohen Kappa score to assess the inter-rater reliability. <h3>Results</h3> In 19 patients, we found that EMMA had no peri-procedural morbidity and mortality. The number of cases in each EMMA grading score category are as follows:0 n=1; 1 n=3; 2 n=1; and 3 n=10. There was substantial inter-rater reliability for assessment of grading of EMMA (Kappa= 0.74). <h3>Conclusions</h3> The novel EMMA grading scheme demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability and appears promising. <h3>Disclosures</h3> <b>J. Shankar:</b> None. <b>Z. Kaderali:</b> 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".