A Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Effect of Glucocorticoid Therapy in Adults with Inflammatory Diseases Is Needed: Report from the OMERACT 2016 Special Interest Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The need for a standardized instrument to measure the effect of glucocorticoid (GC) therapy has been well documented in the literature. The aim of the first GC Special Interest Group was to define a research agenda around the development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in this area. METHODS: The results of a background literature search and the preliminary results of a pilot survey and 2 qualitative studies were presented to facilitate the development of a research agenda. RESULTS: It was agreed that there was a need for a data-driven PROM that identified both positive and negative effects of GC therapy to be used across all inflammatory indications for systemic GC use in adults. A research agenda was developed, consisting of further qualitative work to assess the effect of GC across different groups including various indications for GC use, different age groups, different dosages, and duration of treatment. CONCLUSION: There was agreement on the need for a PROM in this area and a research agenda was set.
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 | 0.045 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".