Collecting clinical data in primary ciliary dyskinesia- challenges and opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Rationale:</ns4:bold> Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is under diagnosed and underestimated. Most clinical research has used some form of questionnaires to capture data but none has been critically evaluated particularly with respect to its end-user feasibility and utility. </ns4:p> <ns4:p/> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Objective:</ns4:bold> To critically appraise a clinical data collection questionnaire for PCD used in a large national PCD consortium in order to apply conclusions in future PCD research. </ns4:p> <ns4:p/> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> We describe the development, validation and revision process of a clinical questionnaire for PCD and its evaluation during a national clinical PCD study with respect to data collection and analysis, initial completion rates and user feedback. </ns4:p> <ns4:p/> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> 14 centers participating in the consortium successfully completed the revised version of the questionnaire for 173 patients with various completion rates for various items. While content and internal consistency analysis demonstrated validity, there were methodological deficiencies impacting completion rates and end-user utility. These deficiencies were addressed resulting in a more valid questionnaire. </ns4:p> <ns4:p/> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> Our experience may be useful for future clinical research in PCD. Based on the feedback collected on the questionnaire through analysis of completion rates, judgmental analysis of the content, and feedback from experts and end users, we suggest a practicable framework for development of similar tools for various future PCD research. </ns4:p>
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".