ArticleDentistry journal2021
Evaluating Classification Consistency of Oral Lesion Images for Use in an Image Classification Teaching Tool.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
A web-based image classification tool (DiLearn) was developed to facilitate active learning in the oral health profession. Students engage with oral lesion images using swipe gestures to classify each image into pre-determined categories (e.g., left for refer and right for no intervention). To assemble the training modules and to provide feedback to students, DiLearn requires each oral lesion image to be classified, with various features displayed in the image. The collection of accurate meta-information is a crucial step for enabling the self-directed active learning approach taken in DiLearn. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the classification consistency of features in oral lesion images by experts and students for use in the learning tool. Twenty oral lesion images from DiLearn's image bank were classified by three oral lesion experts and two senior dental hygiene students using the same rubric containing eight features. Classification agreement among and between raters were evaluated using Fleiss' and Cohen's Kappa. Classification agreement among the three experts ranged from identical (Fleiss' Kappa = 1) for "clinical action", to slight agreement for "border regularity" (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.136), with the majority of categories having fair to moderate agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.332-0.545). Inclusion of the two student raters with the experts yielded fair to moderate overall classification agreement (Fleiss' Kappa = 0.224-0.554), with the exception of "morphology". The feature of clinical action could be accurately classified, while other anatomical features indirectly related to diagnosis had a lower classification consistency. The findings suggest that one oral lesion expert or two student raters can provide fairly consistent meta-information for selected categories of features implicated in the creation of image classification tasks in DiLearn.
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.