Development of the IBD Disk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Disability Index is a validated tool that evaluates functional status; however, it is used mainly in the clinical trial setting. We describe the use of an iterative Delphi consensus process to develop the IBD Disk-a shortened, self-administered adaption of the validated IBD Disability Index-to give immediate visual representation of patient-reported IBD-related disability. METHODS: In the preparatory phase, the IBD CONNECT group (30 health care professionals) ranked IBD Disability Index items in the perceived order of importance. The Steering Committee then selected 10 items from the IBD Disability Index to take forward for inclusion in the IBD Disk. In the consensus phase, the items were refined and agreed by the IBD Disk Working Group (14 gastroenterologists) using an online iterative Delphi consensus process. Members could also suggest new element(s) or recommend changes to included elements. The final items for the IBD Disk were agreed in February 2016. RESULTS: After 4 rounds of voting, the following 10 items were agreed for inclusion in the IBD Disk: abdominal pain, body image, education and work, emotions, energy, interpersonal interactions, joint pain, regulating defecation, sexual functions, and sleep. All elements, except sexual functions, were included in the validated IBD Disability Index. CONCLUSIONS: The IBD Disk has the potential to be a valuable tool for use at a clinical visit. It can facilitate assessment of inflammatory bowel disease-related disability relevant to both patients and physicians, discussion on specific disability-related issues, and tracking changes in disease burden over time.
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 | 0.027 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.013 |
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".