Clinicians’ perspective on key domains in ANCA-associated vasculitis: a Delphi exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The existing set of outcomes for anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) needs to incorporate views of outcome measure stakeholders to meet the current standards of outcome measurement proposed by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) initiative. This study identifies domains that clinical experts (one group of stakeholders) consider to be important to determining the impact of AAV using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), a framework that describes health along four components: body functions, body structures, activities and participation, and contextual factors. METHOD: An international group of clinicians with expertise in the clinical care of patients with vasculitis were identified through consultation with three major vasculitis societies. The relevant domains were determined using a three-round e-mail-based Delphi questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-two clinicians were invited to participate in this study and 41 responded. Nineteen domains were identified as important by > 80% of participants: six body functions (energy, seeing, hearing, pain, respiratory, and renal function), seven body structures (peripheral nerves, eye, ear, nose, sinuses, lungs (and airways), and kidneys), three activities and participation (carrying out daily routine, remunerative employment, and recreation and leisure), and three environmental factors (medications, support and relationships, and health services, systems, and policies). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical experts focus on the physiological effects of AAV with less importance given to the effect of AAV on patients' activities and participation in life situations and the role of contextual factors. This study represents a step towards incorporating views of a range of stakeholders into disease assessment in AAV.
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 | 0.098 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".