MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1998462910 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.131311

Updating the OMERACT Filter: Discrimination and Feasibility

2014· article· en· W1998462910 on OpenAlexaffvenue
George A. Wells, Dorcas Beaton, Peter Tugwell, Maarten Boers, John Kirwan, Clifton O. Bingham, Annelies Boonen, Peter Brooks, Philip G. Conaghan, Maria Antonietta D’Agostino, Maxime Dougados, Daniel E. Furst, Laure Gossec, Francis Guillemin, Philip Helliwell, Sarah Hewlett, Tore K Kvien, Robert Landewé, Lyn March, Philip J. Mease, Mikkel Østergaard, Lee Simon, Jasvinder A. Singh, Vibeke Strand, Désirée M. van der Heijde

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality
KeywordsInterpretabilityMedicineFilter (signal processing)Reliability (semiconductor)Measure (data warehouse)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The "Discrimination" part of the OMERACT Filter asks whether a measure discriminates between situations that are of interest. "Feasibility" in the OMERACT Filter encompasses the practical considerations of using an instrument, including its ease of use, time to complete, monetary costs, and interpretability of the question(s) included in the instrument. Both the Discrimination and Reliability parts of the filter have been helpful but were agreed on primarily by consensus of OMERACT participants rather than through explicit evidence-based guidelines. In Filter 2.0 we wanted to improve this definition and provide specific guidance and advice to participants.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.339
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.757
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3390.757
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.010
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→