Abstract:In supervised learning model development, domain experts are often used to provide the class labels (annotations). Annotation inconsistencies commonly occur when even highly experienced clinical experts annotate the same phenomenon (e.g., medical image, diagnostics, or prognostic status), due to inherent expert bias, judgments, and slips, among other factors. While their existence is relatively well-known, the implications of such inconsistencies are largely understudied in real-world settings, when supervised learning is applied on such 'noisy' labelled data. To shed light on these issues, we conducted extensive experiments and analyses on three real-world Intensive Care Unit (ICU) datasets. Specifically, individual models were built from a common dataset, annotated independently by 11 Glasgow Queen Elizabeth University Hospital ICU consultants, and model performance estimates were compared through internal validation (Fleiss' κ = 0 .383 i.e., fair agreement). Further, broad external validation (on both static and time series datasets) of these 11 classifiers was carried out on a HiRID external dataset, where the models' classifications were found to have low pairwise agreements (average Cohen's κ = 0.255 i.e., minimal agreement). Moreover, they tend to disagree more on making discharge decisions (Fleiss' κ = 0.174 ) than predicting mortality (Fleiss' κ = 0.267 ). Given these inconsistencies, further analyses were conducted to evaluate the current best practices in obtaining gold-standard models and determining consensus. The results suggest that: (a) there may not always be a "super expert" in acute clinical settings (using internal and external validation model performances as a proxy); and (b) standard consensus seeking (such as majority vote) consistently leads to suboptimal models. Further analysis, however, suggests that assessing annotation learnability and using only 'learnable' annotated datasets for determining consensus achieves optimal models in most cases.

Relationships of Cohen's Kappa, Sensitivity, and Specificity for Unbiased Annotations

Why Cohen’s Kappa should be avoided as performance measure in classification

Kappa statistic considerations in evaluating inter-rater reliability between two raters: which, when and context matters

Limits to classification performance by relating Kullback-Leibler divergence to Cohen's Kappa

Estimators of various kappa coefficients based on the unbiased estimator of the expected index of agreements

Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic

Fuzzy Kappa for the Agreement Measure of Fuzzy Classifications

The impact of inconsistent human annotations on AI driven clinical decision making

Comparing Accuracy Assessments to Infer Superiority of Image Classification Methods

Liberal-Conservative Hierarchies of Intercoder Reliability Estimators

Coupled Confusion Correction: Learning from Crowds with Sparse Annotations

Measuring Annotator Agreement Generally across Complex Structured, Multi-object, and Free-text Annotation Tasks

Sensitivity and Specificity versus Precision and Recall, and Related Dilemmas

A likelihood based sensitivity analysis for publication bias on summary ROC in meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

Explaining the unsuitability of the kappa coefficient in the assessment and comparison of the accuracy of thematic maps obtained by image classification

Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity

On the Sensitivity and Stability of Model Interpretations in NLP

The Kappa Paradox Explained

High Agreement and High Prevalence: The Paradox of Cohen’s Kappa

Knnauc: an Open-Source R Package for Detecting Nonlinear Dependence Between One Continuous Variable and One Binary Variable