Use of the Delphi process in paediatric cataract management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify areas of consensus and disagreement in the management of paediatric cataract using a modified Delphi approach among individuals recognised for publishing in this field. DESIGN: A modified Delphi method. PARTICIPANTS: International paediatric cataract experts with a publishing record in paediatric cataract management. METHODS: The process consisted of three rounds of anonymous electronic questionnaires followed by a face-to-face meeting, followed by a fourth anonymous electronic questionnaire. The executive committee created questions to be used for the electronic questionnaires. Questions were designed to have unit-based, multiple choice or true-false answers. The questionnaire included issues related to the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative management of paediatric cataract. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Consensus based on 85% of panellists being in agreement for electronic questionnaires or 80% for the face-to-face meeting, and near consensus based on 70%. RESULTS: Sixteen of 22 invited paediatric cataract surgeons agreed to participate. We arrived at consensus or near consensus for 85/108 (78.7%) questions and non-consensus for the remaining 23 (21.3%) questions. CONCLUSIONS: Those questions where consensus was not reached highlight areas of either poor evidence or contradicting evidence, and may help investigators identify possible research questions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it