MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2325492974 · doi:10.3109/09638288.2016.1145258

Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information

2016· article· en· W2325492974 on OpenAlexaff
Alarcos Cieza, Nora Fayed, Jerome Bickenbach, Birgit Prodinger

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCentre for Disability Prevention and RehabilitationUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparabilityInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthCategorizationTransparency (behavior)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Knowledge managementManagement sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceRehabilitationEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The content of and methods for collecting health information often vary across settings and challenge the comparability of health information across time, individuals or populations. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) contains an exhaustive set of categories of information which constitutes a unified and consistent language of human functioning suitable as a reference for comparing health information. Methods and results In two earlier papers, we have proposed rules for linking existing health information to the ICF. Further refinements to these existing ICF Linking Rules are presented in this paper to enhance the transparency of the linking process. The refinements involve preparing information for linking, perspectives from which information is collected and the categorization of response options. Issues regarding the linking of information not covered or unspecified within the ICF are also revisited in this paper. Conclusion: The ICF Linking Rules are valuable for enhancing comparability of health information to ensure that information is available in a consistent manner to serve as a foundation for evidence-based decision-making across all levels of health systems. The refinements presented in this paper enhance transparency in, and ultimately reliability of the process of, linking health information to the ICF. Implications for Rehabilitation The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) constitutes a unified and consistent language of human functioning suitable as a reference for comparing health information. Comparability of information is essential to ensure that the widest range of information is available in a consistent manner for any decision-maker at all levels of the health system. The refined ICF Linking Rules presented in this article outline the method to establish comparability of health information based on the ICF.

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)0.512
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.841
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5120.841
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.010
Bibliometrics0.0230.021
Science and technology studies0.0080.010
Scholarly communication0.0190.023
Open science0.0100.011
Research integrity0.0100.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations583
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207