Assessing the reliability and validity of the revised WCCNR Stomatitis Staging System for cancer therapy-induced stomatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before developing interventions for stomatitis, nurses require a simple, valid and reliable approach to staging severity. The eight-item WCCNR(R) was previously validated for chemotherapy-induced stomatitis. In this study, the validity and reliability of the WCCNR(R), a shorter three-item tool for staging stomatitis caused by chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or both, was assessed. Pairs of data collectors evaluated 207 patients from 10 Canadian cancer centres. The WCCNR(R) correlated well with the MacDibbs Mouth Assessment (r = 0.44, p = 0.0002 to r = 0.54, p < 0.0001), a standardized tool for staging radiotherapy-induced stomatitis. Agreement between data collectors at five sites was acceptable (kappa = 0.75); three additional sites were close to this target. Findings indicate that the WCCNR is a valid and reasonably reliable tool for staging stomatitis due to cancer therapy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".