Defining Skin Ulcers in Systemic Sclerosis: Systematic Literature Review and Proposed World Scleroderma Foundation (WSF) Definition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is a lack of a valid, definition for skin ulcers in SSc to be used in clinical trials. Our aim was to develop a consensus definition for SSc-skin ulcers based on the results of a systematic literature review (SLR) for skin ulcer definitions and expert opinion; and to evaluate its face validity, reliability and feasibility. METHODS: , 2016. SSc experts were to discuss the definitions' categories and vote for the relevant terms. Reliability of the definition were tested in a second expert meeting, seven SSc experts evaluated 7 SSc pts with skin lesions twice. Face validity and feasibility evaluated by sending out case report forms(CRFs) to 4 SSc experts, they were asked to use the definition in 5 pts each. RESULTS: A total of 3464 abstracts and titles were screened, and 446 articles were fully evaluated. Of these, 66 met eligibility criteria and skin ulcer definitions were extracted. SSc experts discussed, refined and voted on the consensus definition using nominal process. Kappa for inter-, intra-rater rater agreement was 0.51, 0.90 respectively. The mean time to decide if the lesion is an ulcer was 7.4 sec. All investigators endorsed the face validity of the new definition in the CRFs. CONCLUSION: Using a SLR and a nominal technique, we developed a preliminary consensus-based definition of SSc-skin ulcers. Face validity, feasibility and reliability were demonstrated for the developed definition.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it