Roel Bogie

Development and validation of an educational web-based system for endoscopic classification of laterally spreading tumors

Table 2.1 (continuation)

Gwet’s AC1 [95% CI]

Fleiss kappa [95% CI]

Mean pairwise agreement

Feature

Sensitivity analysis After exclusion of most influential rater: Kudo endoscopic classification

2

0.63 [0.57-0.70] 0.61 [0.60-0.63] 0.77 [0.69-0.85] 0.76 [0.74-0.79]

72.1% 88.3%

Granular vs non-granular

Per Kudo subtype: LST-G-H

- - - -

0.58 [0.55-0.61] 0.76 [0.73-0.78] 0.58 [0.55-0.60] 0.55 [0.52-0.58]

- - - -

LST-G-NM LST-NG-FE LST-NG-PD

High vs lower case image quality: High quality

0.67 [0.51-0.70] 0.66 [0.63-0.68] 0.59 [0.50-0.68] 0.48 [0.46-0.50]

74.9% 67.6%

Lower quality

First vs second half of cases: First half

0.61 [0.51-0.70] 0.56 [0.54-0.58] 0.64 [0.55-0.73] 0.62 [0.60-0.64] 0.59 [0.51-0.67] 0.60 [0.58-0.61] 0.72 [0.61-0.82] 0.56 [0.53-0.59] 0.49 [0.38-0.59] 0.46 [0.43-0.49] 0.66 [0.55-0.77] 0.64 [0.62-0.67]

69.7% 72.4% 69.0% 76.6% 61.0% 74.3%

Second half

After exclusion of SSA/Ps Influence of lesion size: 10-19 mm

20-29 mm

≥30 mm

West vs East: Kudo endoscopic classification: West 0.63 [0.55-0.71] 0.61 [0.58-0.64] Kudo endoscopic classification: East 0.71 [0.64-0.78] 0.61 [0.58-0.64]

71.8% 73.5%

Paris Classification Paris complete

0.71 [0.65-0.78] 0.51 [0.49-0.52]*

73.8% 75.8%

Paris 4 groups (lla, lla+c, lla+ls and other) 0.71 [0.65-0.78] 0.52 [0.51-0.54]*

Treatment Endoscopic resection vs surgery

0.94 [0.91-0.97] 0.11 [0.08-0.13]* 0.63 [0.55-0.70] 0.32 [0.30-0.34]*

94.2% 68.5%

All treatment options

25