MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119046452 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.110277

Toward Development of a Fibromyalgia Responder Index and Disease Activity Score: OMERACT Module Update

2011· article· en· W2119046452 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Philip J. Mease, Daniel J. Clauw, Robin Christensen, Leslie J. Crofford, R. Michael Gendreau, Susan Martin, Lee S. Simon, Vibeke Strand, David A. Williams, Lesley M. Arnold

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesParker Institute for Cancer ImmunotherapyNational Institutes of HealthOak Foundation
KeywordsMedicineFibromyalgiaPhysical therapyMoodRheumatologyRheumatoid arthritisClinical trialRandomized controlled trialInternal medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following development of the core domain set for fibromyalgia (FM) in Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) meetings 7 to 9, the FM working group has progressed toward the development of an FM responder index and a disease activity score based on these domains, utilizing outcome indices of these domains from archived randomized clinical trials in FM. Possible clinical domains that could be included in a responder index and disease activity score include pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, mood disturbance, tenderness, stiffness, and functional impairment. Outcome measures for these domains demonstrate good to adequate psychometric properties, although measures of cognitive dysfunction need to be further developed. The approach used in the development of responder indices and disease activity scores for rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis represents heuristic models for our work, but FM is challenging in that there is no clear algorithm of treatment that defines disease activity based on treatment decisions, nor are there objective markers that define thresholds of severity or response to treatment. The process of developing candidate dichotomous responder definitions and continuous quantitative disease activity measures is described, along with participant discussions from OMERACT 10. Final results of this work will be published in a separate report pending completion of analyses.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations64
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207