Patient Engagement In Research: Early Findings From The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
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
Charged with ensuring that research produces useful evidence to inform health decisions, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) requires investigators to engage patients and other health care stakeholders, such as clinicians and payers, in the research process. Many PCORI studies result in articles published in peer-reviewed journals that detail research findings and engagement's role in research. To inform practices for engaging patients and others as research partners, we analyzed 126 articles that described engagement approaches and contributions to research. PCORI projects engaged patients and others as consultants and collaborators in determining the study design, selecting study outcomes, tailoring interventions to meet patients' needs and preferences, and enrolling participants. Many articles reported that engagement provided valuable contributions to research feasibility, acceptability, rigor, and relevance, while a few noted trade-offs of engagement. The findings suggest that engagement can support more relevant research through better alignment with patients' and clinicians' real-world needs and concerns.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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