BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasonography (LUS) is a non-invasive imaging method used to diagnose and monitor conditions such as pulmonary edema, pneumonia, and pneumothorax. It is precious where other imaging techniques like CT scan or chest X-rays are of limited access, especially in low- and middle-income countries with reduced resources. Furthermore, LUS reduces radiation exposure and its related blood cancer adverse events, which is particularly relevant in children and young subjects. The score obtained with LUS allows semi-quantification of regional loss of aeration, and it can provide a valuable and reliable assessment of the severity of most respiratory diseases. However, inter-observer reliability of the score has never been systematically assessed. This study aims to assess experienced LUS operators\' agreement on a sample of video clips showing predefined findings.
METHODS: Twenty-five anonymized video clips comprehensively depicting the different values of LUS score were shown to renowned LUS experts blinded to patients\' clinical data and the study\'s aims using an online form. Clips were acquired from five different ultrasound machines. Fleiss-Cohen weighted kappa was used to evaluate experts\' agreement.
RESULTS: Over a period of 3 months, 20 experienced operators completed the assessment. Most worked in the ICU (10), ED (6), HDU (2), cardiology ward (1), or obstetric/gynecology department (1). The proportional LUS score mean was 15.3 (SD 1.6). Inter-rater agreement varied: 6 clips had full agreement, 3 had 19 out of 20 raters agreeing, and 3 had 18 agreeing, while the remaining 13 had 17 or fewer people agreeing on the assigned score. Scores 0 and score 3 were more reproducible than scores 1 and 2. Fleiss\' Kappa for overall answers was 0.87 (95% CI 0.815-0.931, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The inter-rater agreement between experienced LUS operators is very high, although not perfect. The strong agreement and the small variance enable us to say that a 20% tolerance around a measured value of a LUS score is a reliable estimate of the patient\'s true LUS score, resulting in reduced variability in score interpretation and greater confidence in its clinical use.

BACKGROUND: Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are an increasingly popular evaluation modality for medical students. While the face-to-face interaction allows for more in-depth assessment, it may cause standardization problems. Methods to quantify, limit or adjust for examiner effects are needed.
METHODS: Data originated from 3 OSCEs undergone by 900-student classes of 5th- and 6th-year medical students at Université Paris Cité in the 2022-2023 academic year. Sessions had five stations each, and one of the three sessions was scored by consensus by two raters (rather than one). We report OSCEs\' longitudinal consistency for one of the classes and staff-related and student variability by session. We also propose a statistical method to adjust for inter-rater variability by deriving a statistical random student effect that accounts for staff-related and station random effects.
RESULTS: From the four sessions, a total of 16,910 station scores were collected from 2615 student sessions, with two of the sessions undergone by the same students, and 36, 36, 35 and 20 distinct staff teams in each station for each session. Scores had staff-related heterogeneity (p<10-15), with staff-level standard errors approximately doubled compared to chance. With mixed models, staff-related heterogeneity explained respectively 11.4%, 11.6%, and 4.7% of station score variance (95% confidence intervals, 9.5-13.8, 9.7-14.1, and 3.9-5.8, respectively) with 1, 1 and 2 raters, suggesting a moderating effect of consensus grading. Student random effects explained a small proportion of variance, respectively 8.8%, 11.3%, and 9.6% (8.0-9.7, 10.3-12.4, and 8.7-10.5), and this low amount of signal resulted in student rankings being no more consistent over time with this metric, rather than with average scores (p=0.45).
CONCLUSIONS: Staff variability impacts OSCE scores as much as student variability, and the former can be reduced with dual assessment or adjusted for with mixed models. Both are small compared to unmeasured sources of variability, making them difficult to capture consistently.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative decision making for large (> 2 cm) rectal polyps with ambiguous features is complex. The most common intraprocedural assessment is clinician judgement alone while radiological and endoscopic biopsy can provide periprocedural detail. Fluorescence-augmented machine learning (FA-ML) methods may optimise local treatment strategy.
METHODS: Surgeons of varying grades, all performing colonoscopies independently, were asked to visually judge endoscopic videos of large benign and early-stage malignant (potentially suitable for local excision) rectal lesions on an interactive video platform (Mindstamp) with results compared with and between final pathology, radiology and a novel FA-ML classifier. Statistical analyses of data used Fleiss Multi-rater Kappa scoring, Spearman Coefficient and Frequency tables.
RESULTS: Thirty-two surgeons judged 14 ambiguous polyp videos (7 benign, 7 malignant). In all cancers, initial endoscopic biopsy had yielded false-negative results. Five of each lesion type had had a pre-excision MRI with a 60% false-positive malignancy prediction in benign lesions and a 60% over-staging and 40% equivocal rate in cancers. Average clinical visual cancer judgement accuracy was 49% (with only \'fair\' inter-rater agreement), many reporting uncertainty and higher reported decision confidence did not correspond to higher accuracy. This compared to 86% ML accuracy. Size was misjudged visually by a mean of 20% with polyp size underestimated in 4/6 and overestimated in 2/6. Subjective narratives regarding decision-making requested for 7/14 lesions revealed wide rationale variation between participants.
CONCLUSIONS: Current available clinical means of ambiguous rectal lesion assessment is suboptimal with wide inter-observer variation. Fluorescence based AI augmentation may advance this field via objective, explainable ML methods.

OBJECTIVE: We published a list of \"must-know\" routine EEG (rEEG) findings for trainees based on expert opinion. Here, we studied the accuracy and inter-rater agreement (IRA) of these \"must-know\" rEEG findings among international experts.
METHODS: A previously validated online rEEG examination was disseminated to EEG experts. It consisted of a survey and 30 multiple-choice questions predicated on the previously published \"must-know\" rEEG findings divided into four domains: normal, abnormal, normal variants, and artifacts. Questions contained de-identified 10-20-s epochs of EEG that were considered unequivocal examples by five EEG experts.
RESULTS: The examination was completed by 258 international EEG experts. Overall mean accuracy and IRA (AC1) were 81% and substantial (0.632), respectively. The domain-specific mean accuracies and IRA were: 76%, moderate (0.558) (normal); 78%, moderate (0.575) (abnormal); 85%, substantial (0.678) (normal variants); 85%, substantial (0.740) (artifacts). Academic experts had a higher accuracy than private practice experts (82% vs. 77%; p = .035). Country-specific overall mean accuracies and IRA were: 92%, almost perfect (0.836) (U.S.); 86%, substantial (0.762) (Brazil); 79%, substantial (0.646) (Italy); and 72%, moderate (0.496) (India). In conclusion, collective expert accuracy and IRA of \"must-know\" rEEG findings are suboptimal and heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the development and implementation of pragmatic, accessible, country-specific ways to measure and improve the expert accuracy and IRA.

Accurate segmentation of liver and tumor regions in medical imaging is crucial for the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. However, manual segmentation is time-consuming and subject to inter- and intra-rater variability. Therefore, automated methods are necessary but require rigorous validation of high-quality segmentations based on a consensus of raters. To address the need for reliable and comprehensive data in this domain, we present LiverHccSeg, a dataset that provides liver and tumor segmentations on multiphasic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging from two board-approved abdominal radiologists, along with an analysis of inter-rater agreement. LiverHccSeg provides a curated resource for liver and HCC tumor segmentation tasks. The dataset includes a scientific reading and co-registered contrast-enhanced multiphasic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans with corresponding manual segmentations by two board-approved abdominal radiologists and relevant metadata and offers researchers a comprehensive foundation for external validation, and benchmarking of liver and tumor segmentation algorithms. The dataset also provides an analysis of the agreement between the two sets of liver and tumor segmentations. Through the calculation of appropriate segmentation metrics, we provide insights into the consistency and variability in liver and tumor segmentations among the radiologists. A total of 17 cases were included for liver segmentation and 14 cases for HCC tumor segmentation. Liver segmentations demonstrates high segmentation agreement (mean Dice, 0.95 ± 0.01 [standard deviation]) and HCC tumor segmentations showed higher variation (mean Dice, 0.85 ± 0.16 [standard deviation]). The applications of LiverHccSeg can be manifold, ranging from testing machine learning algorithms on public external data to radiomic feature analyses. Leveraging the inter-rater agreement analysis within the dataset, researchers can investigate the impact of variability on segmentation performance and explore methods to enhance the accuracy and robustness of liver and tumor segmentation algorithms in HCC patients. By making this dataset publicly available, LiverHccSeg aims to foster collaborations, facilitate innovative solutions, and ultimately improve patient outcomes in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal pain assessment (NPA) represents a huge global problem of essential importance, as a timely and accurate assessment of neonatal pain is indispensable for implementing pain management.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the consistency of pain scores derived through video-based NPA (VB-NPA) and on-site NPA (OS-NPA), providing the scientific foundation and feasibility of adopting VB-NPA results in a real-world scenario as the gold standard for neonatal pain in clinical studies and labels for artificial intelligence (AI)-based NPA (AI-NPA) applications.
METHODS: A total of 598 neonates were recruited from a pediatric hospital in China.
METHODS: This observational study recorded 598 neonates who underwent one of 10 painful procedures, including arterial blood sampling, heel blood sampling, fingertip blood sampling, intravenous injection, subcutaneous injection, peripheral intravenous cannulation, nasopharyngeal suctioning, retention enema, adhesive removal, and wound dressing. Two experienced nurses performed OS-NPA and VB-NPA at a 10-day interval through double-blind scoring using the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale to evaluate the pain level of the neonates. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were calculated and analyzed, and a paired samples t-test was used to explore the bias and consistency of the assessors\' pain scores derived through OS-NPA and VB-NPA. The impact of different label sources was evaluated using three state-of-the-art AI methods trained with labels given by OS-NPA and VB-NPA, respectively.
RESULTS: The intra-rater reliability of the same assessor was 0.976-0.983 across different times, as measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. The inter-rater reliability was 0.983 for single measures and 0.992 for average measures. No significant differences were observed between the OS-NPA scores and the assessment of an independent VB-NPA assessor. The different label sources only caused a limited accuracy loss of 0.022-0.044 for the three AI methods.
CONCLUSIONS: VB-NPA in a real-world scenario is an effective way to assess neonatal pain due to its high intra-rater and inter-rater reliability compared to OS-NPA and could be used for the labeling of large-scale NPA video databases for clinical studies and AI training.

UNASSIGNED: Despite its wide use in dementia diagnosis on the basis of cut-off points, the inter-rater variability of the Addenbrooke\'s Cognitive Examination-Third Edition (ACE-III) has been poorly studied.
UNASSIGNED: Thirty-one healthcare professionals from an older adults\' mental health team scored two ACE-III protocols based on mock patients in a computerised form. Scoring accuracy, as well as total and domain-specific scoring variability, were calculated; factors relevant to participants were obtained, including their level of experience and self-rated confidence administering the ACE-III.
UNASSIGNED: There was considerable inter-rater variability (up to 18 points for one of the cases), and one case\'s mean score was significantly higher (by nearly four points) than the true score. The Fluency, Visuospatial and Attention domains had greater levels of variability than Language and Memory. Higher scoring accuracy was not associated with either greater levels of experience or higher self-confidence in administering the ACE-III.
UNASSIGNED: The results suggest that the ACE-III is susceptible to scoring error and considerable inter-rater variability, which highlights the critical importance of initial, and continued, administration and scoring training.

Purpose: An accurate zonal segmentation of the prostate is required for prostate cancer (PCa) management with MRI. Approach: The aim of this work is to present UFNet, a deep learning-based method for automatic zonal segmentation of the prostate from T2-weighted (T2w) MRI. It takes into account the image anisotropy, includes both spatial and channelwise attention mechanisms and uses loss functions to enforce prostate partition. The method was applied on a private multicentric three-dimensional T2w MRI dataset and on the public two-dimensional T2w MRI dataset ProstateX. To assess the model performance, the structures segmented by the algorithm on the private dataset were compared with those obtained by seven radiologists of various experience levels. Results: On the private dataset, we obtained a Dice score (DSC) of 93.90 ± 2.85 for the whole gland (WG), 91.00 ± 4.34 for the transition zone (TZ), and 79.08 ± 7.08 for the peripheral zone (PZ). Results were significantly better than other compared networks\' ( p - value < 0.05 ). On ProstateX, we obtained a DSC of 90.90 ± 2.94 for WG, 86.84 ± 4.33 for TZ, and 78.40 ± 7.31 for PZ. These results are similar to state-of-the art results and, on the private dataset, are coherent with those obtained by radiologists. Zonal locations and sectorial positions of lesions annotated by radiologists were also preserved. Conclusions: Deep learning-based methods can provide an accurate zonal segmentation of the prostate leading to a consistent zonal location and sectorial position of lesions, and therefore can be used as a helping tool for PCa diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the inter-rater reliability of MScanFit MUNE using a \"Round Robin\" research design.
METHODS: Twelve raters from different centres examined six healthy study participants over two days. Median, ulnar and common peroneal nerves were stimulated, and compound muscle action potential (CMAP)-scans were recorded from abductor pollicis brevis (APB), abductor digiti minimi (ADM) and anterior tibial (TA) muscles respectively. From this we calculated the Motor Unit Number Estimation (MUNE) and \"A50\", a motor unit size parameter. As statistical analysis we used the measures Limits of Agreement (LOA) and Coefficient of Variation (COV). Study participants scored their perception of pain from the examinations on a rating scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain).
RESULTS: Before this study, 41.6% of the raters had performed MScanFit less than five times. The mean MUNE-values were: 99.6 (APB), 131.4 (ADM) and 126.2 (TA), with LOA: 19.5 (APB), 29.8 (ADM) and 20.7 (TA), and COV: 13.4 (APB), 6.3 (ADM) and 5.6 (TA). MUNE-values correlated to CMAP max amplitudes (R2-values were: 0.463 (APB) (p<0.001), 0.421 (ADM) (p<0.001) and 0.645 (TA) (p<0.001)). The average perception of pain was 4.
CONCLUSIONS: MScanFit indicates a high level of inter-rater reliability, even with only limited rater experience and is overall reasonably well tolerated by patients. These results may indicate MScanFit as a reliable MUNE method with potential as a biomarker in drug trials.

The clinical relevance of rapid eye movement sleep-related obstructive sleep apnea (REM OSA) is supported by its associated adverse health outcomes and impact on optimal treatment strategies. To date, no assessment of REM OSA phenotyping performance has been conducted for any type of sleep testing technology. The objective of this study was to assess this for polysomnography and peripheral arterial tone-based home sleep apnea testing (PAT HSAT). In a dataset comprising 261 participants, the sensitivity and specificity of the agreement on REM OSA phenotyping was assessed for two independent scorings of polysomnography and a synchronously administered PAT HSAT. The sensitivity and specificity of REM OSA phenotyping were 0.87 and 0.89, respectively, for the polysomnography inter-scorer comparison, and 0.68 and 0.97 for the PAT HSAT on a single-night basis, using the conventional minimum required rapid eye movement sleep time of 30 min. Polysomnography-based REM OSA phenotyping was found to be sensitive and specific even for a single-night testing protocol. Peripheral arterial tone-based REM OSA phenotyping showed a lower sensitivity but a slightly higher specificity compared to polysomnography. In order to increase performance and conclusiveness of peripheral arterial tone-based REM OSA phenotyping, a multi-night protocol of 2-5 nights could be considered. Finally, the minimum required rapid eye movement sleep time could be lowered from the conventional 30 min to 15 min without significantly lowering REM OSA phenotyping sensitivity and specificity, while increasing the level of phenotyping conclusiveness.