41 Lessons learned during the practice of a no-conflict of-interest panel-of-three adjudication process in the RSV program
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
RSV prophylaxis with palivizumab is restricted to evidence-based indications in infants at relatively higher hospital admission risk. The RSV Program’s criteria follow CPS and AAP guidelines, but adjudication is needed in conditions of questionable efficacy or in infants who have a moderate risk of contracting RSV. In 2015–16, a blinded simple-majority Panel-of-Three adjudication (PoTA) process was implemented where adjudicators are from different specialities (e.g. neonatology, Peds ID, etc.) and are neither caregivers nor have funding that can be traced to the manufacturer/vendor for conflict of interest (COI) and bias avoidance. To review adjudications across 3 RSV seasons (2015–2018) and determine the benefits and challenges associated with the PoTA structure. All cases of PoTAs were reviewed and categorized based on age of infant, season, and diagnosis. Seasonal admissions with RSV & LRTI were ascertained provincially using 7 RSV-related acute respiratory infection ICD-10 codes, and cross-checked using the Program’s palivizumab database. The reliability of agreement within PoTAs during each season was measured with average pairwise percent agreement (APPA) and Fleiss kappa. In the 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2018-18 seasons, 67/467 applications (14.2%), 64/416 (15.4%), and 64/452 (13.9%) were adjudicated, with overall approval rates of 51%, 42% and 33% respectively. There was a trend towards lower approval rates from 2015–16 (range: 42–60%) to 2017–18 (25–38%), with a median approval turnaround time of 3 days. Infants with “exceptional conditions” (e.g. progressive neuromuscular and central nervous system disorders) comprised the largest category of applicants undergoing PoTA, followed by infants with significant pulmonary disabilities. Infants with immunodeficiencies were consistently approved in >80% of cases. In 2015–16, 2016–17 and 2017–18, the APPA and Fleiss kappa were found to be 78.1% and 0.57, 76.0% and 0.51 (moderate agreements) and 83.3% and 0.63 (moderate-to-substantial agreement). Unanimous decisions were reached in 46%, 47%, and 48% of cases amongst 3 adjudicators, for each season, respectively. Hospitalization rates were 20/82 (5 RSV+) in approved, and 3/113 (2 RSV+) in non-approved cases over 3 seasons. We describe an adjudication process that balances transparency and independence of adjudicators from one another. Timely decisions were reached in most cases, and the rates of hospitalized infants in the non-approved category remained small. The PoTA reached agreement in the adjudication decision in most cases and the low hospitalization rates in non-approved infants suggest that the decision process is both safe and efficient.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,545 | 0,613 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,020 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,033 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».