Protocol for the mixed-methods development of a concussion-specific health-related quality of life outcome measure based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recovery from concussion has traditionally been evaluated by patient-reported symptoms, objective measures such as loss of consciousness, specific dimensions such as depression or fatigue, cognitive status, employment status, level of physical activity and the more complex construct of disability. Increasingly, patient-reported outcome measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) are being emphasised as an important end point in patient care, clinical trial and health policy decisions. Currently, no standardised concussion-specific HRQOL outcome measure exists. The process for developing a concussion-specific HRQOL outcome measure based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health is outlined. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multistage, patient-centred approach to developing the outcome measure will integrate evidence from systematic reviews, qualitative research and cognitive interviewing into a self-report questionnaire to guide clinical decision-making. The psychometric properties of the questionnaire will be evaluated to assess the inter-rater reliability and construct validity of the measure in individuals with persistent post-concussion symptoms. To date, the systematic review and the clinical expert interviews within the preparatory phase have been completed and work is progressing on the subsequent phases. It is anticipated that the outcome measure will be ready for psychometric testing in September 2018. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board (Protocol #20170720-01H) on 31 October 2017 to conduct the patient and clinical expert interviews. Ethical approval for psychometric testing of the outcome measure will be sought by the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board in Phase II, after the development of the final HRQOL questionnaire. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and professional conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: Phase I systematic review registration number CRD42017075588 (15 June 2017). Phase II systematic review registration number CRD42017075588 (27 September 2017).
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 | 0.100 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.188 | 0.039 |
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".