MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762789840 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006985

Explanation and elaboration of the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines: examples of reporting SUNDAE items from patient decision aid evaluation literature

2018· article· en· W2762789840 on OpenAlexaff
Aubri Hoffman, Karen Sepucha, Purva Abhyankar, Stacey Sheridan, Hilary Bekker, Annie LeBlanc, Carrie A. Levin, Mary E. Ropka, Victoria A. Shaffer, Dawn Stacey, Peep F. M. Stalmeier, Ha Vo, Celia E. Wills, Richard Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversité Laval
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityUniversity of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterDuncan Family Institute for Cancer Prevention and Risk AssessmentHealthwiseInformed Medical Decisions Foundation
KeywordsChecklistDecision aidsElaborationMedicineStructuringMedical educationManagement scienceAlternative medicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The E&E focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the E&E broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual checklist items.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.398
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207