ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
From variability to consistency: building a Kellgren-Lawrence gonarthrosis dataset.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to address variability in Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) staging by analyzing interobserver differences between radiologists and orthopedic surgeons to build unbiased datasets for AI-driven gonarthrosis solutions.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed 15,159 weight-bearing AP knee radiographs from patients aged 18 years and older collected from five centers between 2011 and 2020. The radiographs were labeled by two radiologists and two orthopedic surgeons independently, followed by a consensus evaluation by two experienced orthopedic specialists. KL staging was assessed both on a 0-4 scale and in two clinically relevant categories: early stage (KL ≤ 2) and advanced stage (KL ≥ 3). In clinical practice, low stage cases are generally managed with conservative treatments, while high-stage cases often indicate a higher need for surgical intervention.
resultsA total of 15,159 knee radiographs were analyzed, with participants comprising 6,207 (40.9%) males and 8,952 (59.1%) females, with a mean age of 56.97 ± 4.2 years. The agreement between radiologists and experts in the KL staging ranged from κ = 0.085 to κ = 0.172, while agreement between orthopedic surgeons and experts ranged from κ = 0.18 to κ = 0.307. These values indicate slight to fair agreement among radiologists and fair to moderate agreement among orthopedic surgeons on the original KL stage The categorization of the KL stages into two groups (KL ≤ 2 vs. KL ≥ 3) resulted in enhanced inter-rater reliability, with orthopedic surgeons demonstrating substantial agreement (κ = 0.637-0.692) compared to radiologists (κ = 0.183-0.230). The highest intra-professional agreement was observed between Radiologist 1 and Radiologist 2 (κ = 0.55) on the 0-4 the KL scale and between Orthopedic Surgeon 1 and Orthopedic Surgeon 2 (κ = 0.642) in the two-category classification.
conclusionsOrthopedic surgeons showed higher agreement with experts and among themselves, particularly in advanced stages (KL ≥ 3), compared to radiologists, who demonstrated only mild to moderate agreement. Categorizing KL stages into early (KL ≤ 2) and advanced (KL ≥ 3) groups improved interobserver reliability, thereby facilitating the development of standardized AI datasets.
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.