MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983658022 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2014.06.009

YouTube As an Information Source for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review of Video Content

2014· review· en· W1983658022 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew G. MacLeod, Daniel J. Hoppe, Nicole Simunovic, Mohit Bhandari, Marc J. Philippon, Olufemi R. Ayeni

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemoroacetabular impingementIntraclass correlationQuality ScoreVideo qualityReliability (semiconductor)Quality (philosophy)MedicineComputer sciencePhysical therapyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study was carried out to assess the quality of information available on YouTube regarding femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: YouTube was searched on September 7, 2013 using the search terms FAI, femoroacetabular impingement, and hip impingement. Analysis was restricted to the first 3 pages of results for each search term. English language was a prerequisite for inclusion. Videos were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers (M.G.M., D.J.H.) using novel scoring checklists for diagnosis and treatment of FAI. Interobserver reliability analysis was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Videos were grouped according to quality assessment score, and the group means were analyzed for differences in video characteristics using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) model. Videos were characterized by the source of content. RESULTS: After filtering 1,288,324 potential videos, 52 videos were identified and included for analysis. The mean video quality assessment scores were 3.1 for diagnosis and 2.9 for treatment (maximum score = 16). No videos were scored as excellent (quality assessment score > 12). Effective resources included 3 videos on diagnosis and one video on treatment. No statistically significant differences were found between high- and low-scoring videos for duration, days online, views per day, likes, likes per day, likes per view, dislikes, or likes-dislikes difference for either diagnosis or treatment (P > .05 for all). The source of most of the videos was educational (67%), and most of these included physicians (66%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients searching YouTube for videos pertaining to FAI will be presented with a sizeable repository of content of overall low quality. As such, physicians need to recognize the potential influence of YouTube videos on patients' preconceptions of their conditions and the effect on the physician-patient consultation. This review highlights the need for evidence-based, comprehensive educational videos addressing FAI diagnosis and treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, systematic review of non-peer-reviewed resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations166
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207