ArticleScientific reports2023
Learning more from the inter-rater reliability of interstitial fibrosis assessment beyond just a statistic.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal deep learning improving the accuracy of pathological diagnoses for membranous nephropathy.Renal failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Interstitial fibrosis assessment by renal pathologists lacks good agreement, and we aimed to investigate its hidden properties and infer possible clinical impact. Fifty kidney biopsies were assessed by 9 renal pathologists and evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and kappa statistics. Probabilities of pathologists' assessments that would deviate far from true values were derived from quadratic regression and multilayer perceptron nonlinear regression. Likely causes of variation in interstitial fibrosis assessment were investigated. Possible misclassification rates were inferred on reported large cohorts. We found inter-rater reliabilities ranged from poor to good (ICCs 0.48 to 0.90), and pathologists' assessments had the worst agreements when the extent of interstitial fibrosis was moderate. 33.5% of pathologists' assessments were expected to deviate far from the true values. Variation in interstitial fibrosis assessment was found to be correlated with variation in interstitial inflammation assessment (r
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.