ArticleSleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung2026
Inter-rater reliability in drug-induced sleep endoscopy: experience-driven interpretation, decision-making, and the emerging role of artificial intelligence.
Article in Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the inter-rater reliability of DISE interpretation using the VOTE classification, assess variability in therapeutic decision-making, and explore the potential role of artificial intelligence (AI) in DISE evaluation.
methodsTwenty DISE recordings were retrospectively and independently evaluated by 12 raters (7 junior and 5 senior) and by a general-purpose AI model without task-specific training. Inter-rater agreement among human raters for obstruction grading and pattern classification was assessed using percentage agreement, Fleiss' kappa, and weighted kappa. Agreement with a reference standard (unanimous expert consensus) was analyzed. Treatment proposals were evaluated using exact match ratio and Jaccard similarity.
resultsAt baseline, agreement among human raters ranged from 43.6% to 68.0% for obstruction grading (weighted κ, 0.255-0.425) and from 60.8% to 79.3% for collapse pattern (Fleiss' κ, 0.287-0.370). Senior raters showed higher baseline agreement than junior raters across all anatomical levels for collapse pattern and at three of four levels for obstruction grading. Agreement with the expert consensus ranged from 70.0% to 90.0% for senior raters and from 35.0% to 85.0% for AI in baseline grading, and from 75.0% to 95.0% and 50.0% to 80.0%, respectively, in baseline pattern classification. For therapeutic recommendations, exact agreement was 70.0% for senior raters, 55.0% for junior raters, and 50.0% for AI; mean Jaccard similarity was 0.867, 0.833, and 0.742, respectively.
conclusionsDISE interpretation remains complex and operator-dependent. Pattern classification appears more reproducible than grading. While a non-task-specific AI model captured clinically relevant patterns, it did not match expert performance in complex decision-making. AI may serve as a supportive tool, particularly for less experienced clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42766212What 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.