MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411549963 · doi:10.1161/strokeaha.125.049454

COSMOS: Interrater and Intrarater Reliability Study of a Novel Outcome Measure

2025· review· en· W4411549963 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mayank Goyal, Aravind Ganesh, Salome Bosshart, Alexander Stebner, Nishita Singh, Bijoy K. Menon, Shelagh B. Coutts, Johanna M. Ospel, Mohammed Almekhlafi, Julie Kromm, Philippe Couillard, Dar Dowlatshahi, Brian Buck, Brian van Adel, Karla J. Ryckborst, Anurag Trivedi, Chrysi Bogiatzi, Alexandre Y. Poppe, Mohamad Mehdi, Luciana Catanese, Ruth Whelan, Robert Fahed, Brindan Sivanandan, Mohamed A AlShamrani, Sachin Mishra, Umberto Pensato, Ben Agnelli, Arun Kathuveetil, Ivy Sebastian, Aleksander Tkach, Katrina Hannah D. Ignacio, Miranda Wan, Susan Alcock, Richard H. Swartz, Genoveva Maclean, Carol Kenney, Andrew M. Demchuk, Michael D. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth Education and Validation
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouver Coastal HealthSunnybrook Health Science CentreRoyal University HospitalWestern UniversityInterior HealthLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Alberta HospitalFoothills Medical CentreUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of OttawaPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversité de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInter-rater reliabilityMeasure (data warehouse)Intra-rater reliabilityReliability (semiconductor)StatisticsInternal medicineRating scaleConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vast majority of patients with minor stroke achieve what are considered good or excellent outcomes on the modified Rankin Scale (0-1/0-2), yet many are dissatisfied with their outcomes. There is a need for a functional outcome measure tailored for minor stroke that better reflects the spectrum of clinical outcomes within this population. We developed the Canadian Outcome Scale for Minor Stroke (COSMOS) and performed an interrater and intrarater reliability study. COSMOS is a 7-point scale ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (loss of independence for an instrumental or basic activity of daily living or worse), which accounts for performance limitations and losses of a person's hobbies or passions and of their employment, educational, service, or caregiving pursuits, besides just activities of daily living. One hundred test case vignettes were developed. Stroke physicians, fellows, and research nurses/staff were invited to review training materials and provide the COSMOS grade for 20 cases representing all COSMOS grades (0-6). After a minimum 2 weeks' wash-out period, participants were asked to grade the same 20 cases again. Interrater and intrarater agreement were assessed using Cohen κ, weighted κ, percentage agreement, and intraclass correlation coefficient. Among 33 participants (18 attending physicians, 9 stroke fellows, and 6 research staff/nurses; median 12.5 years of experience), COSMOS had substantial interrater reliability (80.5% agreement [95% CI, 75.7%-85.3%]; Cohen κ, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.84]) and almost-perfect intrarater reliability overall (87.1% agreement [95% CI, 84.4%-89.7%]; Cohen κ, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.82-0.88]); weighted κ showed almost perfect agreement for both interrater (0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.92]) and intrarater reliability (0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.94]). The overall chance-adjusted simultaneous intrarater/interrater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97). Results were similar with substantial to almost-perfect agreement when considering key subgroups based on position (attendings, fellows, research nurses/staff) and years of experience. In conclusion, the newly proposed COSMOS scale demonstrated substantial interrater and intrarater reliability. The scale merits further study in cohort studies and clinical trials of minor stroke.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.261
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrokeSame topicHealth Education and ValidationFrench-language works237,207