MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2401867646 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011780

Moving forward through consensus: protocol for a modified Delphi approach to determine the top research priorities in the field of orthopaedic oncology

2016· article· en· W2401867646 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patricia Schneider, Nathan Evaniew, Juan Sebastian Rendon, Paula McKay, R. Lor Randall, Robert Turcotte, Roberto Vélez, Mohit Bhandari, Michelle Ghert

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesJuravinski Cancer CentreMcGill UniversityMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodDelphiProtocol (science)Ranking (information retrieval)Clinical trialResearch ethicsMedical educationMedical physicsField (mathematics)Research designOperations researchManagement scienceAlternative medicineComputer sciencePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic oncology researchers face several obstacles in the design and execution of randomised controlled trials, including finite fiscal resources to support the rising costs of clinical research and insufficient patient volume at individual sites. As a result, high-quality research to guide clinical practice has lagged behind other surgical subspecialties. A focused approach is imperative to design a research programme that is economical, streamlined and addresses clinically relevant endpoints. The primary objective of this study will be to use a consensus-based approach to identify research priorities for international clinical trials in orthopaedic oncology. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a 3-phase modified Delphi method consisting of 2 sequential rounds of anonymous web-based questionnaires (phases I and II), and an in-person consensus meeting (phase III). Participants will suggest research questions that they believe are of particular importance to the field (phase I), and individually rate each proposed question on 5 criteria (phase II). Research questions that meet predetermined consensus thresholds will be brought forward to the consensus meeting (phase III) for discussion by an expert panel. Following these discussions, the expert panel will be asked to assign scores for each research question, and research questions meeting predetermined criteria will be brought forward for final ranking. The expert panel will then be asked to rank the top 3 research questions, and these 3 research questions will be distributed to the initial group of participants for validation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: An ethics application is currently under review with the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The results of this initiative will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

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)0.204
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2040.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.019

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 head0.553
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.075 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations112
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207