MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887509233 · doi:10.1080/02687038.2018.1487020

Report from ROMA: an update on the development of a core outcome set for aphasia research

2018· article· en· W2887509233 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAphasiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphasiaPsychologySet (abstract data type)Outcome (game theory)PopulationInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthDelphi methodCore (optical fiber)Clinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceRehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Report from ROMA: an update on the development of a core outcome set for aphasia research." Aphasiology, 32(sup1), pp. 241–242KEYWORDS: Aphasiacore outcome set Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Background: A Core Outcome Set (COS) is a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in research trials of a specific health condition or population. The use of a COS does not preclude the measurement of study-specific outcomes, but rather represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Benefits of COSs include: (1) increased transparency and reliability of research findings through the recommended reporting of a minimum set of outcomes; (2) production of compatible research data which can be efficiently synthesised in subsequent meta-analyses; and (3) reduced research wastage through the measurement of relevant outcomes which are more likely to inform treatment decision-making.This presentation provides an update on ongoing works to develop a COS for aphasia treatment research (Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2016 Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2016). Core outcomes in aphasia treatment research: an e-Delphi consensus study of international aphasia researchers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25, S729–S742.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2017a Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2017a). Using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health to identify outcome domains for a core outcome set for aphasia: A comparison of stakeholder perspectives. Disabil Rehabil, 1–10. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1400593[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], 2017b Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2017b). Which treatment outcomes are most important to aphasia clinicians and managers? An international e-Delphi consensus study. Aphasiology, 31, 643–673.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]; Wallace, Worrall, Rose, Le Dorze, et al., 2017 Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., Le Dorze, G., Cruice, M., Isaksen, J., … Gauvreau, C. A. (2017). Which outcomes are most important to people with aphasia and their families? An international nominal group technique study framed within the ICF. Disabil Rehabil, 39, 1364–1379.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Research to date has identified essential outcome constructs as: language, communication, patient-reported satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment, emotional wellbeing, and quality of life (Wallace, Worrall, Rose, & Le Dorze, 2017a Wallace, S. J., Worrall, L., Rose, T., & Le Dorze, G. (2017a). Using the international classification of functioning, disability, and health to identify outcome domains for a core outcome set for aphasia: A comparison of stakeholder perspectives. Disabil Rehabil, 1–10. doi:10.1080/09638288.2017.1400593[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). During the first ROMA consensus meeting, consensus was reached for measures of language (The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R); 74%), emotional wellbeing (General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 (83% consensus); and quality of life (Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39); 96%).Aims: To provide an update on the ROMA (Improving Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia) project to develop a COS for aphasia treatment research.Methods & Procedures: This presentation will provide an update on the ROMA consensus statement and current research exploring measures of communication for inclusion in the COS. Outcomes from the 2nd ROMA international consensus meeting will be discussed.Outcomes & Results: ROMA COS consensus statement. The ROMA consensus statement provides recommendations for a COS for aphasia treatment research. The consensus statement has been endorsed by the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists, the British Aphasiology Society, The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and the German Society for Aphasia Research and Therapy.Measuring communication as a core outcome in aphasia trials: Updates will be provided on current research examining the measurement of communication in aphasia trials. The outcomes from the 2nd ROMA international consensus meeting, which aims to develop a research agenda for the identification of a core measure of communication, will be discussed.Conclusions: How an outcome is defined and measured is critical in research design. Well-chosen outcome measures not only allow the detection of meaningful change within individual studies, but also facilitate synthesis across trials (Brady et al., 2014 Brady, M. C., Ali, M., Fyndanis, C., Kambanaros, M., Grohmann, K. K., Laska, A.-C., … Varlokosta, S. (2014). Time for a step change? Improving the efficiency, relevance, reliability, validity and transparency of aphasia rehabilitation research through core outcome measures, a common data set and improved reporting criteria. Aphasiology, 1–8. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.930261[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). The development and implementation of a COS has the potential to improve the quality of aphasia treatment studies.

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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.681
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.063 · 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