Frequency‐volume chart: The minimum number of days required to obtain reliable results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There is wide variation in the number of days necessary to maintain a diary and still furnish reliable data on which to base a sound clinical assessment. Estimates range from 1 day to 2 weeks, 7 days probably being the criterion standard. The goal of this retrospective study was to evaluate how much the 7-day period could be shortened without compromising the reliability of data. METHODS: Various lengths of frequency-volume (FV) charts (from 1 day to 6 days) were compared with the standard 7-day charts on 14 FV parameters. RESULTS: Overall results show that a 4-day dairy is nearly identical to the 7-day chart (most r > or = 0.95). Results of the 1-, 2-, and 3-day charts were frequently different statistically from the 7-day chart, whereas comparison of the 4-day chart with the 7-day chart showed no statistically significant differences. In addition, results of 4-day FV charts from a new control cohort showed no significant differences from the 7-day charts of the main cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our study indicates that the 4-day chart is as reliable as the 7-day chart. This reduction in the length of time, although easier for the patients, does not compromise the diagnostic value of the FV charts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".