ライフサイエンスコーパス: interrater reliability

1 hypodensities at baseline (kappa = 0.87 for interrater reliability).

2 ment Scale all exhibited very high levels of interrater reliability.

3 ently scored by the other raters to evaluate interrater reliability.

4 ent two independent assessments to establish interrater reliability.

5 of care, but a major drawback has been poor interrater reliability.

6 up visits was created to test the intra- and interrater reliability.

7 terpretations of chest radiographs have poor interrater reliability.

8 tion, kappa coefficients were calculated for interrater reliability.

9 t group, nine features had at least moderate interrater reliability.

10 coefficients (ICCs) were computed to compare interrater reliability.

11 idation group, respectively) had the highest interrater reliability.

12 The reviewers had moderate to excellent interrater reliability.

13 were performed in blinded fashion to assess interrater reliability.

14 category, and management for test-retest and interrater reliability.

15 independently by a second researcher to test interrater reliability.

16 arater reliability and from 0.44 to 1.00 for interrater reliability.

17 ing concerns regarding testing confounds and interrater reliability.

18 Fourteen studies evaluated interrater reliability.

19 Average neurologic soft sign scores (interrater reliability = 0.74) of women with PTSD owing

20 validity among guideline developers and good interrater reliability across trained reviewers.

21 Purpose To evaluate the interrater reliability among radiologists examining post

22 An interrater reliability analysis was performed using the

23 For interrater agreement analysis and interrater reliability analysis, multirater Fleiss kappa

24 visual rating protocol achieved the highest interrater reliability and accuracy especially under low

25 ested the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Ramsay s

26 ease (ILD), relatively little is known about interrater reliability and construct validity of HRCT-re

27 This study demonstrates that HRCT has good interrater reliability and correlates with indices of th

28 The RASS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability and criterion, construct, and fac

29 The RCT-PQRS had good interrater reliability and internal consistency.

30 The CPM (a) demonstrated satisfactory interrater reliability and internal consistency; (b) exh

31 sted for photographic equivalency as well as interrater reliability and intrarater reliability by 5 r

32 This study was conducted to determine the interrater reliability and predictive validity of a set

33 iew for Prodromal Syndromes showed promising interrater reliability and predictive validity.

34 Interrater reliability and responsiveness were each asse

35 There was improvement in the interrater reliability and the level of agreement from E

36 We tested interrater reliability and validity in determining the N

37 isease activity and damage demonstrated high interrater reliability and were shown to be comprehensiv

38 Percentage of visual reader agreement, interrater reliability, and agreement of each visual rea

39 Internal consistency, interrater reliability, and concurrent (criterion) valid

40 scores and dilutional CrAg titers, assessed interrater reliability, and determined the clinical corr

41 Secondary outcomes included feasibility, interrater reliability, and efficiency to complete bedsi

42 ted methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift in clinical tria

43 ted methods of rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift were systematica

44 ber of raters, rater training, assessment of interrater reliability, and rater drift.

45 ndently scored by 3 dermatopathologists with interrater reliability assessed.

46 with high intrarater (average ICC, 0.91) and interrater reliability (average ICC, 0.78).

47 There was a high degree of agreement and interrater reliability between CEC and RHD outcome deter

48 ssments of performance were recorded with an interrater reliability between reviewers of 0.99.

49 whole-brain CT perfusion and CT angiography, interrater reliability (Cohen kappa), and adverse events

50 was found to have good internal consistency, interrater reliability, concurrent validity, high sensit

51 Analyses of interrater reliabilities, convergent validities accordin

52 For a subsample, interrater reliability data were available.

53 ree (14%) of the multicenter trials reported interrater reliability, despite a median number of five

54 y included 95 DBT examinations with moderate interrater reliability (Fleiss k = 0.45).

55 y included 95 DBT examinations with moderate interrater reliability (Fleiss kappa = 0.45).

56 Interrater reliabilities for intern and team technical s

57 Most body sites exhibited moderate to good interrater reliabilities for scale and erythema.

58 tion coefficient scores were used to measure interrater reliability for both scenarios.

59 Good interrater reliability for BPII can be achieved when the

60 Interrater reliability for care-received classification

61 Interrater reliability for classification of care receiv

62 Further, the interrater reliability for diagnosing schizoaffective di

63 By contrast, the interrater reliability for erythema was higher during in

64 Expert interrater reliability for gamma spikes (percentage agre

65 Interrater reliability for infarct size between the core

66 and perform detection at the level of human interrater reliability for metastases larger than 6 mm.K

67 Interrater reliability for multiparametric MRI versus PE

68 Interrater reliability for multiphase CT angiography is

69 Interrater reliability for OSAD was excellent (ICC = 0.9

70 The interrater reliability for radiographs was dependent on

71 The interrater reliability for specific locations was also e

72 Interrater reliability for the Arabic CAM-ICU, overall a

73 Interrater reliability for the final NEATS instrument ha

74 There was excellent interrater reliability for the identification of localiz

75 Rheumatologists and patients had low interrater reliability for the presence of hypercholeste

76 Live scoring showed an excellent interrater reliability for the VES (intraclass correlati

77 udy nurses and intensivist demonstrated high interrater reliability for their CAM-ICU ratings with ka

78 ation over time was observed because of high interrater reliability from the outset (ie, a ceiling ef

79 ead to the diagnosis of a syndrome with high interrater reliability, good face validity, and high pre

80 physicians using structured implicit review (interrater reliability >0.90).

81 s identified features with at least moderate interrater reliability (ICC >=0.41) that were independen

82 We assessed interrater reliability in a subgroup of 180 stroke event

83 ined raters achieved moderate to substantial interrater reliability in coding cases using 5 types of

84 There was an improvement in interrater reliability in the second phase of the study.

85 atric rheumatologists demonstrated excellent interrater reliability in their global assessments of ju

86 observations demonstrated at least moderate interrater reliability (interrater ICC range, 0.42 [95%

87 echniques and demonstrated good to excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficie

88 dapted Cognitive Exam demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficie

89 ement among laboratories, calculated through interrater reliability (IRR) measures for the PCR test t

90 l records review studies, information on the interrater reliability (IRR) of the data is seldom repor

91 was reviewed by 2 independent investigators, interrater reliability (IRR) was calculated, and the WPV

92 0 cohort year to assess standardized patient interrater reliability (IRR).

93 9.0 minutes per patient) and more objective (interrater reliability kappa 0.79 vs 0.45) than the conv

94 There was poor interrater reliability (kappa = 0.36 [range, 0.06-0.64];

95 es also favored progression with substantial interrater reliability (kappa = 0.80 [95% CI, 0.61-0.99]

96 n = 97, respectively; P < .001), with higher interrater reliability (kappa = 0.91-0.95 for EPI-FLAIR

97 ccuracy of 94% (95% CI 88% to 97%), and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.94; 95% CI 0.83-1.0).

98 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence int

99 5% confidence interval, 95-100%), and a high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence int

100 Interrater reliability (Kendall's coefficient of concord

101 Interrater reliability measures across subgroup comparis

102 Severity Scale was associated with excellent interrater reliability, moderate internal consistency, a

103 lass correlation coefficient as a measure of Interrater reliability, NICS scored as high, or higher t

104 Internal consistencies and interrater reliabilities of factors were stable across a

105 this study was to determine test-retest and interrater reliabilities of RUCAM in retrospectively-ide

106 condary outcomes included the intrarater and interrater reliabilities of the BF-VR.

107 The objective was to assess the interrater reliability of ABSIS and PDAI scores and thei

108 predefined errors for each procedure minute (interrater reliability of error assessment r > 0.80).

109 Interrater reliability of handgrip dynamometry was very

110 Interrater reliability of handheld dynamometry was compa

111 The interrater reliability of many of the key concepts in ps

112 Criterion, construct, face validity, and interrater reliability of NICS over time and comparison

113 Interrater reliability of nodule detection with MR imagi

114 Interrater reliability of proSPI-s was assessed in 12 pa

115 How and to what extent interrater reliability of radiomics features vary in res

116 portray depressed patients to establish the interrater reliability of raters using the Hamilton Depr

117 The interrater reliability of the BF-VR algorithm was excell

118 A scoring cut point of 9 demonstrated good interrater reliability of the Cornell Assessment of Pedi

119 eline development, the external validity and interrater reliability of the instrument were evaluated.

120 Interrater reliability of the lesion assessment was high

121 e To evaluate the diagnostic performance and interrater reliability of the Liver Imaging Reporting an

122 Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council s

123 Interrater reliability of the Medical Research Council-s

124 The interrater reliability of the modified Advocacy-Inquiry

125 The interrater reliability of the NDJ was excellent, with an

126 The interrater reliability of the overall scale showed an IC

127 This study also assessed the intra- and interrater reliability of ultrasound as a measurement to

128 ual reliability of the optimal feature using interrater reliability, percentage agreement (standard d

129 The kappa coefficient for interrater reliability ranged from 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31 to

130 The interrater reliability ranged from kappa = 0.86 to kappa

131 Interrater reliability (reported as intraclass correlati

132 index distribution, which was assessed using interrater reliability scores.

133 perienced PET researchers participated in an interrater reliability study using both (11)C-DTBZ K(1)

134 The poor interrater reliability suggests that if digital ulcerati

135 Outcome measures had higher interrater reliability than process measures.

136 Interrater reliability, validity, and dimensionality of

137 Interrater reliability was (k = 0.79).

138 .54 (upper 95% confidence limit = 0.77); the interrater reliability was 0.45 (upper 95% confidence li

139 Interrater reliability was 0.536 (95% confidence interva

140 The Fleiss kappa for interrater reliability was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.77, 0.78), an

141 Interrater reliability was 0.91 (intraclass correlation

142 Excellent interrater reliability was achieved in all assessments (

143 Interrater reliability was assessed by percent concordan

144 Interrater reliability was assessed by using a set of te

145 The interrater reliability was assessed using intraclass cor

146 Interrater reliability was assessed using kappa statisti

147 The interrater reliability was assessed using weighted kappa

148 Interrater reliability was assessed, using the five scal

149 Interrater reliability was determined by using a two-way

150 Interrater reliability was determined.

151 Interrater reliability was estimated using a multirater

152 MR images were assessed; interrater reliability was evaluated.

153 VTI interrater reliability was excellent (intraclass correla

154 Interrater reliability was excellent for all ancillary t

155 Interrater reliability was excellent for CSAMI Activity

156 Interrater reliability was excellent for methods requiri

157 We found that the interrater reliability was excellent with the FOUR score

158 Interrater reliability was fair (weighted kappa 0.47 and

159 45 studies representing the 3 study designs, interrater reliability was high (Cohen's kappa: 0.73; 95

160 Overall interrater reliability was higher for the PRIMARY scale

161 ants in whom visual and SUVR data disagreed, interrater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.44), but

162 For infarct size, interrater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.675; 95%

163 Interrater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.68) among

164 Fair-to-moderate interrater reliability was observed between the resident

165 Light generalization of Cohen k for interrater reliability was performed.

166 ates, and a comparison with neuroradiologist interrater reliability was performed.

167 Interrater reliability was poorer (weighted kappa = 0.46

168 Excellent interrater reliability was present (correlation coeffici

169 was scored on a six-point ordinal scale, and interrater reliability was tested.

170 Interrater reliability was then explored.

171 n atypical characteristics yielded very high interrater reliability (weighted kappa = 0.80; bootstrap

172 both the RASS and RS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.91 and 0.94, r

173 Interrater reliabilities were .82 or greater for all MRI

174 The interrater reliabilities were highest for the PDAI, foll

175 ty including sensitivity and specificity and interrater reliability were determined using daily delir

176 Code frequency and interrater reliability were determined using NVIVO softw

177 Adequate levels of interrater reliability were found for 24 of 26 items.

178 ata also indicate the presence of acceptable interrater reliability when using the Ottawa GRS.

179 ctive accuracy of our model approaches human interrater reliability, which simulations suggest would

180 ypes IV, VI, and VI demonstrated a sustained interrater reliability, with an ICC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.8

181 There was high interrater reliability, with an intraclass correlation c

182 Indices had low-to-fair interrater reliability within institutions (kappa range,