FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3151569154> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3151569154 endingPage "515e" @default.
• W3151569154 startingPage "514e" @default.
• W3151569154 abstract "Sir: We applaud the authors for their article.1 They successfully used a crowd to rate large numbers of images for aesthetics quickly yet also similarly to professionals. However, we urge caution, as there is no clear evidence that reliability has improved or that this technology helps establish a valid assessment. Crowdsourcing 250 raters for each survey seems impressive, but the character of these Web site–recruited, anonymized lay raters could improve or reduce the validity of any scoring system, and we know little about the intrarater reliability of any of the raters. Nose ranking was from full anteroposterior and profile views. Deall et al.2 demonstrated that lip scores have better reliability than isolated nose scores, and dominate whole-image scores. Original Asher-McDade3 scoring does not show the lower lip. Failure to crop out the lower lip means the effect of class III occlusion could be confounding (Fig. 1). Some raters seeing the lip when evaluating the nasal features may have a perception bias, underestimating the influence of the whole image on individual component rating. The authors used Pearson correlation as their main statistical tool. This is designed for interclass (not intraclass) reliability. It is unclear whether other statistics have been used, specifically, for intraclass reliability. To analyze ordinal five-category Asher-McDade scores, the aggregated total or mean was used. This dilutes assessment toward the middle ranks. Although the whole scales are not fully used, the agreement will appear inflated. To study reliability and validation simultaneously while considering the correlated data, alternative statistical methods are proposed in Deall et al.2 and Bella et al.4 This article describes higher correlations than in the literature for Asher-McDade outcomes (interrater and intrarater reliability of ±0.60 and ±0.70,3–6 respectively); this needs more explanation. The rater variability should not be overlooked, as two of six surgeons reported reliability lower (0.64 to 0.66) than the majority (0.80 to 0.90 in Table 4). Some raters never “see” a good result, whereas others never see a poor result.4 Simply increasing the number of raters does not improve reliability unless “bad” scorers have been excluded. Details of image selection were lacking, with the number of images not guaranteeing a full spectrum of outcomes. It would have been instructive to summarize 50 images against the Asher-McDade scales. As a small proportion (13 images) of the original 50 images were selected for surgeon review, this may predispose to a large selection bias. The ultimate goal of facial aesthetic measures is to produce an absolute rating scale. Although Elo ranking elicited relative ranking, it does not allow comparison of one center or technique with another, unless they are in the same sample and scored together. The inclusion of four noncleft images was reassuring, as raters perceived these to be aesthetically pleasing. In conclusion, we believe that crowdsourcing has the potential to deliver rapid results and provide insights toward developing a subjective rating scheme. However, the current evaluation again recognizes the absolute difference between images but does not make it any more quantifiable. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication. No funding was received by the authors. Janak Bechar, M.R.C.S.Birmingham Children’s HospitalBirmingham, United Kingdom Ting-Li Su, Ph.D.Division of DentistryFaculty of Biology, Medicine, and HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchester, United Kingdom Bruce Richard, F.R.C.S.(Plast.)Birmingham Children’s HospitalBirmingham, United Kingdom" @default.
• W3151569154 created "2021-04-13" @default.
• W3151569154 creator A5025848685 @default.
• W3151569154 creator A5044073563 @default.
• W3151569154 creator A5061519322 @default.
• W3151569154 date "2017-09-01" @default.
• W3151569154 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3151569154 title "Crowdsourcing as a Novel Method to Evaluate Aesthetic Outcomes of Treatment for Unilateral Cleft Lip" @default.
• W3151569154 cites W2082403178 @default.
• W3151569154 cites W2409498740 @default.
• W3151569154 cites W2424564554 @default.
• W3151569154 cites W2424639490 @default.
• W3151569154 cites W2525352145 @default.
• W3151569154 cites W4243963098 @default.
• W3151569154 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/prs.0000000000003634" @default.
• W3151569154 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28590970" @default.
• W3151569154 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W3151569154 type Work @default.
• W3151569154 sameAs 3151569154 @default.
• W3151569154 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3151569154 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3151569154 hasAuthorship W3151569154A5025848685 @default.
• W3151569154 hasAuthorship W3151569154A5044073563 @default.
• W3151569154 hasAuthorship W3151569154A5061519322 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C104709138 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C154945302 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C171606756 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C189430467 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C43214815 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C62230096 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C69941244 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C70410870 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C104709138 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C121332964 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C136764020 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C154945302 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C163258240 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C171606756 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C189430467 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C29694066 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C41008148 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C43214815 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C62230096 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C62520636 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C69941244 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C70410870 @default.
• W3151569154 hasConceptScore W3151569154C71924100 @default.
• W3151569154 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3151569154 hasLocation W31515691541 @default.
• W3151569154 hasOpenAccess W3151569154 @default.
• W3151569154 hasPrimaryLocation W31515691541 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W1976246125 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W1978782785 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W2048186466 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W2091906057 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W2349344359 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W2371823531 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W2979815338 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W2984194912 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W3199442799 @default.
• W3151569154 hasRelatedWork W4367833940 @default.
• W3151569154 hasVolume "140" @default.
• W3151569154 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3151569154 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3151569154 magId "3151569154" @default.
• W3151569154 workType "article" @default.