ArticleNPJ digital medicine2023
The impact of inconsistent human annotations on AI driven clinical decision making.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.
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
47 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consensus operational definitions of surgical meta-competencies for computer vision-driven performance assessment: a multi-institutional Delphi study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Time-Stamped Annotations in High-Frequency Physiological Data: Evaluating an Approach for Assessing Annotation Plausibility in the CENTER-TBI Dataset.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Leveraging ECG foundation models in critical care for sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation classification.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Bias and Fairness Across the Healthcare AI Lifecycle: A Clinician-Oriented Review.Balkan medical journal · 2026Review
- Bridging annotated microscopy imaging data and analysis method development for scientific discovery.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Review
- Displaced minds: ecologies of depression.Biomedical journal · 2026Article
- Automated interictal epileptic spike detection from simple and noisy annotations in MEG data.Brain structure & function · 2026Article
- Who labels best? Radiologists, rules, or large language models for CT reports on pulmonary embolism.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- Application of Sparse Autoencoders to Enhance Mechanistic Interpretability of Large Language Models in Medicine.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Clinical sentiment analysis of ICU notes: a dataset and a comparison of lexicon and clinical language model methods.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- PrecLLM: A Privacy-Preserving Framework for Efficient Clinical Annotation Extraction from Unstructured EHRs using Small-Scale LLMs.Research square · 2026Article
- The Integrated Nerve, Discoligamentous Complex, and Vertebra Scoring System for Thoracolumbar Junction (TLJ) Injury.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Large language model-based uncertainty-adjusted label extraction for artificial intelligence model development in upper extremity radiography.European radiology · 2026Article
- ECG trained artificial intelligence for the detection of patients with inducible myocardial ischemia.European heart journal. Digital health · 2026Article
- QRNN-GRU framework for automatic argument and annotation extraction in medical drug reviews.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Meets Nail Diagnostics: Emerging Image-Based Sensing Platforms for Non-Invasive Disease Detection.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance of an Intelligent Messaging Tool for Clinical Communications.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Data annotation and its evaluation in artificial intelligence-based anatomy recognition for ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia: a clinical perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- AI-driven quality enhancement of medical datasets: a closed-loop framework of synthesis, annotation, quality control, and integration.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- From Zero-Shot to Bedside: A Practical Playbook for Adapting Open-Source Large Language Models to Clinical Symptom Extraction.Proceedings of machine learning research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In supervised learning model development, domain experts are often used to provide the class labels (annotations). Annotation inconsistencies commonly occur when even highly experienced clinical experts annotate the same phenomenon (e.g., medical image, diagnostics, or prognostic status), due to inherent expert bias, judgments, and slips, among other factors. While their existence is relatively well-known, the implications of such inconsistencies are largely understudied in real-world settings, when supervised learning is applied on such 'noisy' labelled data. To shed light on these issues, we conducted extensive experiments and analyses on three real-world Intensive Care Unit (ICU) datasets. Specifically, individual models were built from a common dataset, annotated independently by 11 Glasgow Queen Elizabeth University Hospital ICU consultants, and model performance estimates were compared through internal validation (Fleiss' κ = 0.383 i.e., fair agreement). Further, broad external validation (on both static and time series datasets) of these 11 classifiers was carried out on a HiRID external dataset, where the models' classifications were found to have low pairwise agreements (average Cohen's κ = 0.255 i.e., minimal agreement). Moreover, they tend to disagree more on making discharge decisions (Fleiss' κ = 0.174) than predicting mortality (Fleiss' κ = 0.267). Given these inconsistencies, further analyses were conducted to evaluate the current best practices in obtaining gold-standard models and determining consensus. The results suggest that: (a) there may not always be a "super expert" in acute clinical settings (using internal and external validation model performances as a proxy); and (b) standard consensus seeking (such as majority vote) consistently leads to suboptimal models. Further analysis, however, suggests that assessing annotation learnability and using only 'learnable' annotated datasets for determining consensus achieves optimal models in most cases.
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.