Interobserver Variability in the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)-Defined Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the interobserver variability for complications of pancreatoduodenectomy as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) and others. BACKGROUND: Good interobserver variability for the definitions of surgical complications is of major importance in comparing surgical outcomes between and within centers. However, data on interobserver variability for pancreatoduodenectomy-specific complications are lacking. METHODS: International cross-sectional multicenter study including 52 raters from 13 high-volume pancreatic centers in 8 countries on 3 continents. Per center, 4 experienced raters scored 30 randomly selected patients after pancreatoduodenectomy. In addition, all raters scored 6 standardized case vignettes. This variability and the "within centers" variability were calculated for 2-fold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B/C) and 3-fold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B vs grade C) of postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatoduodenectomy hemorrhage, chyle leak, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. Interobserver variability is presented with Gwet AC-1 measure for agreement. RESULTS: Overall, 390 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The overall agreement rate for the standardized cases vignettes for 2-fold scoring was 68% (95% CI: 55%-81%, AC1 score: moderate agreement), and for 3-fold scoring 55% (49%-62%, AC1 score: fair agreement). The mean "within centers" agreement for 2-fold scoring was 84% (80%-87%, AC1 score; substantial agreement). CONCLUSIONS: The interobserver variability for the ISGPS-defined complications of pancreatoduodenectomy was too high even though the "within centers" agreement was acceptable. Since these findings will decrease the quality and validity of clinical studies, ISGPS has started efforts aimed at reducing the interobserver variability.
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 | 0.040 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".