Analyse pädiatrisch neuro-onkologischer Informationen in deutschsprachigen Internetseiten
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fast growing internet offers easy access to medical information. So far there are limited data concerning the quality of this information. This study examined quality and readability of paediatric neuro-oncological information on the internet in german language. METHOD: Using the search terms "medulloblastoma", "ependymoma", "craniopharyngeoma", "brainstem glioma" and "low grade astrocytoma" in six different search engines, the first 30 universal/uniform resource locators (URLs) of each search engine were assessed. Appropriate Web sites were evaluated in regards to quality using DISCERN-Instrument and checklist rating system. Readability was rated by Flesch Reading Ease score. RESULTS: Out of 889,56 web sites remained evaluable. Most of the sites rated as poor to very poor (49 %), 30 % rated as fair and 21 % as good to very good. Readability was scored as very difficult with complex vocabulary content limiting the usefulness of good web sites. CONCLUSIONS: Search-ing for childhood brain tumours via internet is time consuming and most often ineffective. There is a lack of high-quality and comprehensible information on childhood brain tumours on german web sites. Cooperation of scientific medical societies and the Federal Ministry of Health is essential to provide comprehensible and high-quality information on internet as an effective and supportive resource for patients and their relatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.018 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".