MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806779655 · doi:10.1177/1460458218779113

Quantitative and qualitative testing of DARWeb: An online self-guided intervention for children with functional abdominal pain and their parents

2018· article· en· W2806779655 on OpenAlexaff
Rubén Nieto, Mercè Boixadós, Imma Beneitez, Anna Huguet, Patrick J. McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Informatics Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
Funders“la Caixa” Foundation
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)MedicineCoping (psychology)Abdominal painQuality of life (healthcare)Physical therapyClinical psychologyPsychologyNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this study was to preliminary explore the effects of DARWeb on different outcomes. A Quasi-experimental, one-group, pretest-posttest design was used. Parents and children were asked to complete questionnaires and questions (separately) about quality of life, abdominal pain severity, and satisfaction. Semi-structured interviews with families were also performed. This study focuses on 17 families. Results showed that parent's ratings of children's abdominal pain severity were significantly lower after finishing the intervention and at the 3-month follow-up, and quality of life scores had increased significantly after 3 months. From children's ratings, mean abdominal pain severity scores were significantly lower after the intervention compared to the preintervention assessment. Both parents and children were quite satisfied with the intervention. In qualitative interviews, families suggested that DARWeb helped them to give less importance to pain and to learn coping strategies. In conclusion, this study showed the potential usefulness of DARWeb for children with functional abdominal pain and for their parents.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.286 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Informatics JournalSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207