MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592397927 · doi:10.1016/j.schres.2017.03.017

Consistency checks to improve measurement with the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)

2017· article· en· W2592397927 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Rabinowitz, Nina R. Schooler, Ariana Anderson, Lindsay E. Ayearst, David G. Daniel, Michael Davidson, Bruce J. Kinon, François Ménard, Lewis A. Opler, Mark Opler, Joanne B. Severe, David J. Williamson, Christian Yavorsky, Jun Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueSchizophrenia Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsVictoria Park
FundersAllerganNational Institute on AgingInnovative Medicines InitiativeEuropean CommissionNational Institute of Mental HealthEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations
KeywordsFLAGS registerConsistency (knowledge bases)Reliability (semiconductor)Positive and Negative Syndrome ScaleRating scaleScale (ratio)PsychologyClinical trialInternal consistencyClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineComputer sciencePsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyPsychosisInternal medicineArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology convened an expert working-group that assembled consistency/inconsistency flags for the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). Twenty-four flags were identified and divided based on extent to which they represent error (Possibly, Probably, Very probably or definitely). The flags were applied to assessments derived from the NEWMEDS data repository and the CATIE clinical trial data. Almost 40% of ratings had at least one inconsistency flag raised and 10% had two. Application of flags to clinical rating can improve reliability and validity of trials.

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)0.502
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.586
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5020.586
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchizophrenia ResearchSame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207