Identifying patient‐important outcomes in polycystic kidney disease: An international nominal group technique study
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
AIM: Patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) are at increased risk of premature mortality, morbidities and complications, which severely impair quality of life. However, patient-centered outcomes are not consistently reported in trials in ADPKD, which can limit shared decision-making. We aimed to identify outcomes important to patients and caregivers and the reasons for their priorities. METHODS: Nominal group technique was adopted involving patients with ADPKD and caregivers who were purposively selected from eight centres across Australia, France and the Republic of Korea. Participants identified, ranked and discussed outcomes for trials in ADPKD. We calculated an importance score (0-1) for each outcome and conducted thematic analyses. RESULTS: Across 17 groups, 154 participants (121 patients, 33 caregivers) aged 19 to 78 (mean 54.5 years) identified 55 outcomes. The 10 highest ranked outcomes were: kidney function (importance score 0.36), end-stage kidney disease (0.32), survival (0.21), cyst size/growth (0.20), cyst pain/bleeding (0.18), blood pressure (0.17), ability to work (0.16), cerebral aneurysm/stroke (0.14), mobility/physical function (0.12), and fatigue (0.12). Three themes were identified: threatening semblance of normality, inability to control and making sense of diverse risks. CONCLUSION: For patients with ADPKD and their caregivers, kidney function, delayed progression to end-stage kidney disease and survival were the highest priorities, and were focused on achieving normality, and maintaining control over health and lifestyle. Implementing these patient-important outcomes may improve the meaning and relevance of trials to inform clinical care in ADPKD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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