Inter-Rater Agreement for the Annotation of Neurologic Concepts in Electronic Health RecordsInter-Rater Agreement • November 16th, 2022
The extraction of patient signs and symptoms recorded as free text in electronic health records is critical for precision medicine. Once extracted, signs and symptoms can be made computable by mapping to clinical concepts in an ontology. Extracting clinical concepts from free text is tedious and time-consuming. Prior studies have suggested that inter-rater agreement for clinical concept extraction is low. We have examined inter-rater agreement for annotating neurologic concepts in clinical notes from electronic health records. After training on the annotation process, the annotation tool, and the supporting neuro-ontology, three raters annotated 15 clinical notes in three rounds. Inter-rater agreement between the three annotators was high for text span and category label. A machine annotator based on a convolutional neural network had a high level of agreement with the human annotators, but one that was lower than human inter-rater agreement. We conclude that high levels of
Inter Rater Agreement DefinitionInter Rater Agreement • July 26th, 2021
That this could achieve positive finding could lead to tongue features show, for medical care or not what effective applications, leaving and ultimately improving the inter rater reliability
Appendix L: Inter-rater Agreement of Storytelling 1st AttemptInter-Rater Agreement • March 15th, 2016
Researcher / Collaborator 1.Ignore sub f/back 2.Toeing the line 3.Differentiatin g on culture 4.Managing effectively 5. Managing ineffectively 6. Damaging team morale 7.Consider subs 8.Interfering/c ontrolling head office 9.Putting work/the client first 10.Misc Total 1.Ignore sub f/back 6 6 2.Toeing the line 3 3 3.Differentiating on culture 2 1 9 12 4.Managing effectively 2 2 4 5. Managing ineffectively 5 1 6 6. Damaging team morale 1 4 5 7.Consider subs 2 2 8.Interfering/controllin g head office 3 3 9.Putting work/the client first 4 4 10.Misc 1 1 1 2 2 3 10 Total 8 5 10 2 6 6 4 5 6 3 55 % Agreement=74.54% Total number 55 Pr (a) 0.75 Pr (e) 0.11 Kappa 0.71
Inter-rater Agreement in Physician-coded Problem ListsInter-Rater Agreement • June 29th, 2005
Coded problem lists will be increasingly used for many purposes in healthcare. The usefulness of coded problem lists may be limited by 1) how consistently clinicians enumerate patients’ problems and 2) how consistently clinicians choose a given concept from a controlled terminology to represent a given problem. In this study, 10 physicians reviewed the same 5 clinical cases and created a coded problem list for each case using UMLS as a controlled terminology. We assessed inter-rater agreement for coded problem lists by computing the average pair- wise positive specific agreement for each case for all
Supplemental Digital Content 6: Inter-rater agreementInter-Rater Agreement • August 18th, 2019
The Bland-Altman plots demonstrate the inter-rater agreement of the measurements of the lesion size (Area, A), the cumulative circumference (Perimeter, B), the roundness of the lesion (Circularity, C) the maximal (Feretmax, D) and minimal (Feretmin, E) perpendicular distance between parallel tangents touching opposite sides of the lesion, and the number of atrophic spots (Focality, F). Measurement differences of both readers are plotted against their mean. The solid line indicates the mean difference and the dashed lines indicate the 95% limits of agreement. There were no systematic differences between the readers.
INTER-RATER AGREEMENTInter-Rater Agreement • August 17th, 2011
Grade Item Number Number of ScoreCategories Number of ResponsesScored Twice Percent Exact Percent Adjacent Correlation Percent of ThirdScores comp1 5 254 96.46 3.54 0.82 4.33 comp2 5 253 96.44 2.37 0.75 5.93 3 ind1 4 246 96.75 3.25 0.89 3.25 ind2 4 235 97.45 2.13 0.86 2.55 sk1 4 246 98.78 1.22 0.93 1.22 sk2 4 235 97.87 2.13 0.90 2.13 comp1 5 178 97.19 1.69 0.79 5.62 comp2 5 178 95.51 2.81 0.67 6.74 4 comp3 5 178 98.31 1.69 0.91 3.37 ind1 4 161 98.14 1.86 0.93 2.48 ind2 4 165 95.76 4.24 0.88 4.85 ind3 4 166 96.99 3.01 0.93 3.01
Inter-rater agreement in defining chemical incidents at the National Poisons Information Service, LondonInter-Rater Agreement • July 1st, 2004
Background: National surveillance for chemical incidents is being developed in the UK. It is important to improve the quality of information collected, standardise techniques, and train personnel.
INTER – RATER AGREEMENT FOR RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH AYURVEDIC CLASSIFICATIONSInter-Rater Agreement • April 28th, 2019
Abstract: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease characterized by joint swelling, joint tenderness, and destruction of synovial joints, leading to severe disability and premature mortality. Rheumatologists face unique challenges in discriminating between rheumatologic and non-rheumatologic disorders with similar manifestations, and in discriminating among rheumatologic disorders with shared features. In Ayurvedic classics the chronic inflammatory joint diseases are classified under different terminologies like Vatasonita, Amavata, Sandhigata vata, are the important classification /diagnosis in comparison to Rheumatoid Arthritis. In addition to these three terminologies, kadeesoola, sandhisoola etc also considered by some physicians. Two individuals using identical methodology on identical samples (reproducibility) to obtain the same result. The objective of the study was to find out the inter-rater reliability in diagnosing the joint disorders using Ayurvedic termi
Appendix M: Inter-rater Agreement of Storytelling 2nd AttemptInter-Rater Agreement • March 15th, 2016
Researcher / Collaborator 1.Ignore sub f/back 2.Toeing the line 3.Differentiatin g on culture 4.Managing effectively 5. Managing ineffectively 6. Damaging team morale 7.Consider subs 8.Interfering/c ontrolling head office 9.Putting work/the client first 10.Misc Total 1.Ignore sub f/back 7 7 2.Toeing the line 4 4 3.Differentiating on culture 1 1 10 12 4.Managing effectively 2 2 5. Managing ineffectively 6 1 7 6. Damaging team morale 1 5 6 7.Consider subs 4 4 8.Interfering/controlling head office 5 5 9.Putting work/the client first 6 6 10.Misc 1 1 2 Total 8 6 10 2 6 6 4 5 7 1 55 % Agreement = 90.90% Total number 55 Pr (a) 0.91 Pr (e) 0.12 Kappa 0.90
Joni O. Salminen1, Hind A. Al-Merekhi2, Partha Dey3 and Bernard J. Jansen1Inter-Rater Agreement • April 15th, 2018
In 1954, Bennett et al. [25] proposed an S-score to represent the agreement between two raters where the effect of chance was nullified by subtracting the expected number of chance- agreements. From probability theory, if rater A rates an item into any one of the categories (say i of q), then there is a 1/q chance of rater B too rating that item as the same category (i),completely by chance. This uniform assumption gave rise to the chance-agreement (and subsequent S-score) as :
