ArticlePloS one2025
Reliability and agreement during the Rapid Entire Body Assessment: Comparing rater expertise and artificial intelligence.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of artificial-intelligence-enhanced video feedback to improve manufacturing workers' ergonomic postural behavior: A preliminary investigation.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2026Article
- Occupational health hazards in veterinary oncology practice.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and agreement between human raters (novice, intermediate, and expert) and TuMeke Risk Suite when assessing work with the Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA). Twenty-one videos portraying veterinarians performing an equine radiograph were assessed with REBA by human raters and TuMeke Risk Suite (ergonomic artificial intelligence software). Intra-rater reliability of the final REBA score was highest for TuMeke Risk Suite (ICC = 1.0), then the expert rater (ICC = 0.89 (0.78-0.95)), and lowest for the novice rater (ICC = 0.51 (0.25-0.74)). Agreement between the expert rater and TuMeke Risk Suite was highest for scores of the trunk, leg, and upper arm, and lowest for the neck, wrist, and lower arm. The REBA tool in TuMeke Risk Suite may be of benefit to less experienced users to enhance reliability of their REBA assessments, especially when the trunk, legs, and upper arm are of primary interest.
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.