Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis in adults1. PubMed publications for gout increased 3-fold from 181 in 2000 to 552 in 2012, indicating an increased interest in gout. The thinking is evolving on how to set the future research agenda for gout. The creation of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), a public-private partnership for funding clinical and patient-oriented research in the United States (www.pcori.org/research-we-support/priorities-agenda/), is an example of this change. PCORI recommends the involvement of patients at every stage of the research activity, including the selection of the research question. Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT), an international consortium of researchers and methodologists, pioneered active patient involvement in the development of disease outcome measures more than a decade ago (www.omeract.org). Including all the involved parties in the research is the way of the future, yet patient participation in prioritizing and conducting research is limited. To our knowledge, there are no studies of patient input into research-agenda setting for gout. Therefore, we aimed to perform a qualitative study and asked patients with gout what research should be done on that topic. Patients of our community-based outpatient clinic who had an International Classification of Diseases , ninth revision, common modification code for gout (274.xx) during 2011–2012 were invited to … Address correspondence to Dr. Singh, University of Alabama, Faculty Office Tower 805B, 510 20th Street S, Birmingham, Alabama 35294, USA. E-mail: Jasvinder.md{at}gmail.com
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 | 0.054 | 0.194 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".