ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2015
Log-Linear Modeling of Agreement among Expert Exposure Assessors.
Article in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Baseline Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Staging Rectal Cancer Patients Proceeding Directly to Surgery.Journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of expert assessment of exposure depends, in the absence of a validation measurement, upon measures of agreement among the expert raters. Agreement is typically measured using Cohen's Kappa statistic, however, there are some well-known limitations to this approach. We demonstrate an alternate method that uses log-linear models designed to model agreement. These models contain parameters that distinguish between exact agreement (diagonals of agreement matrix) and non-exact associations (off-diagonals). In addition, they can incorporate covariates to examine whether agreement differs across strata.
methodsWe applied these models to evaluate agreement among expert ratings of exposure to sensitizers (none, likely, high) in a study of occupational asthma.
resultsTraditional analyses using weighted kappa suggested potential differences in agreement by blue/white collar jobs and office/non-office jobs, but not case/control status. However, the evaluation of the covariates and their interaction terms in log-linear models found no differences in agreement with these covariates and provided evidence that the differences observed using kappa were the result of marginal differences in the distribution of ratings rather than differences in agreement. Differences in agreement were predicted across the exposure scale, with the likely moderately exposed category more difficult for the experts to differentiate from the highly exposed category than from the unexposed category.
conclusionsThe log-linear models provided valuable information about patterns of agreement and the structure of the data that were not revealed in analyses using kappa. The models' lack of dependence on marginal distributions and the ease of evaluating covariates allow reliable detection of observational bias in exposure data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.