The quality of information about sickle cell disease on the Internet for youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adolescence is a vulnerable time for teens with sickle cell disease (SCD). Although there is evidence to support the use of web-based education to promote self-management skills in patients with chronic illnesses, the quality of SCD-related information on the Internet has not been assessed. PROCEDURE: A website review was conducted to appraise the quality, content, accuracy, readability, and desirability of online information for the adolescents with SCD. Relevant keywords were searched on the most popular search engines. Websites meeting predetermined criteria were reviewed. The quality of information was appraised using the validated DISCERN tool. Two physicians independently rated website completeness and accuracy. Readability of the sites was documented using the simple measure of gobbledygook (SMOG) scores and the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). The website features considered desirable by youth were tracked. RESULTS: Search results yielded >600 websites with 25 unique hits meeting criteria. The overall quality of the information was "fair" and the average DISCERN rating score was 50.1 (±9.3, range 31.0-67.5). Only 12 of 25 (48%) websites had scores >50. The average completeness score was 20 of 29 (±5, range 12-27). No errors were identified. The mean SMOG score was 13.04 (±2.80, range 10.21-22.85) and the mean FRE score was 46.05 (±11.47; range 17.50-66.10), suggesting that the material was written well beyond the acceptable reading level for patient education. The websites were text-heavy and lacked the features that appeal to youth (chat, games, videos, etc.). CONCLUSION: Given the paucity of high-quality health information available for the teens with SCD, it is essential that additional online resources be developed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".