MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reproducibility of the University of Toronto Self-administered Questionnaire Used to Assess Environmental Sensitivity

2000· article· en· W2015749825 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gail McKeown‐Eyssen, Ellen R. Sokoloff, V. Jazmaji, Lynn M. Marshall, Cornelia J. Baines

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvocation testMultiple chemical sensitivityMedicineReproducibilityFamily medicineKappaPediatricsEnvironmental healthPsychiatryAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental sensitivity patients report symptoms provoked by low-level exposure to a wide range of substances. Features of published case definitions include nature of onset, chronicity, symptom provocation by multiple substances, symptom provocation by an escalating number of exposures, involvement of multiple body systems including the nervous system, provocation by unrelated substances, and addictive behaviors. This study assessed the reproducibility of a Canadian self-administered questionnaire, the University of Toronto Health Survey, designed to determine the prevalence of the features described in these case definitions. A total of 191 eligible respondents aged 16-70 years who attended several types of medical practices in 1994 were invited to complete a second questionnaire 5-7 months after the first; 134 (70.2%) complied. Total agreement on whether patients satisfied each of seven case definitions ranged from 80% to 90%. After adjustment for chance, major agreement was observed for three of the seven case definitions (kappa = 0.69, 0.68, and 0.78). The survey achieved good reproducibility regarding self-report of symptoms described in published case definitions of environmental sensitivity.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207