ArticleATS scholar2026
Improving inter-rater reliability in radiographic edema scoring in acute respiratory failure through structured training and expert feedback.
Article in ATS scholar, 2026. 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.
- Quantifying diffuse airspace disease on portable chest radiographs in acute respiratory failure using the RALE score.Intensive care medicine experimental · 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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReproducible quantification of pulmonary edema on chest radiographs is challenging for bedside clinicians. The Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema (RALE) score offers a structured, semi-quantitative approach with prognostic implications in acute respiratory failure (ARF), yet its clinical use is limited by the absence of standardized training.
objectiveTo determine whether a standardized RALE training program, combined with expert feedback, improves inter-rater reliability across clinician experience levels.
methodsWe analyzed 4487 chest radiographs from 864 critically ill patients with ARF enrolled in a prospective registry. Sixteen physicians (1 expert and 15 reviewers-including 5 interns, 4 residents, 3 fellows, and 3 attendings) completed a 3-phase RALE training program: (i) independent review of instructional materials, (ii) a live virtual session led by the expert, and (iii) iterative practice with expert feedback on discrepant scores. All scoring was performed using the Pulmo-Annotator platform. We assessed inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, and Deming regression, while stratifying performance by experience level and self-reported confidence.
resultsInter-rater reliability improved following the training program, with ICC increasing from 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92) to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.95) after expert feedback. Fellows demonstrated the largest gain of ICC from 0.89 to 0.97, while interns and attendings maintained high reliability. Post-feedback analyses indicated reduced systematic bias. Residents exhibited the greatest variability and revised fewer scores post-feedback, despite equivalent exposure to feedback. Score distributions also varied by self-reported confidence, with greater variability among less experienced reviewers.
conclusionFollowing a structured training program, radiographic edema scoring using the RALE framework demonstrated excellent inter-rater reliability, which further improved with targeted expert feedback. This structured training program, which incorporated standardized instructional materials and iterative feedback, demonstrated that RALE scoring is teachable across different levels of clinical experience and can be integrated into educational curricula to enhance consistency in chest radiograph interpretation. These findings provide a foundation for future work exploring the role of RALE training in broader research and clinical applications.
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.