MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2933243814 · doi:10.1111/pcmr.12784

Validation of a physician global assessment tool for vitiligo extent: Results of an international vitiligo expert meeting

2019· article· en· W2933243814 on OpenAlexaff
Nanja van Geel, Albert Wolkerstorfer, Khaled Ezzedine, Amit G. Pandya, Marcel W. Bekkenk, Lynda Grine, Sarah Van Belle, Janny E. Lommerts, Iltefat Hamzavi, John E. Harris, Viktoria Eleftheriadou, Samia Esmat, Hee Young Kang, Prasad Kumarasinghe, Cheng‐Che E. Lan, Davinder Parsad, Noufal Raboobee, Leihong Xiang, Tamio Suzuki, C.A.C. Prinsen, Alain Taı̈eb, Mauro Picardo, Reinhart Speeckaert

Bibliographic record

VenuePigment Cell & Melanoma Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicmelanin and skin pigmentation
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and Immunity
FundersLEO Fondet
KeywordsVitiligoIntraclass correlationInter-rater reliabilityMedicineReimbursementScale (ratio)DermatologyConstruct validityClinical psychologyRating scaleStatisticsPsychometricsMathematicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, vitiligo lacks a validated Physician Global Assessment (PGA) for disease extent. This PGA can be used to stratify and interpret the numeric scores obtained by the Vitiligo Extent Score (VES). We investigated the interrater reliability of a 5-point PGA scale during an international vitiligo workshop. Vitiligo experts from five different continents rated photographs of non-segmental vitiligo patients with varying degrees of extent with the PGA score. Good interrater agreements (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.6) were observed between the raters overall and within each continent. All hypotheses to evaluate construct validity were confirmed. Median VES values per category were for limited 1.10 [IQR: 0.21-1.67], moderate 3.17 [IQR: 1.75-6.21], extensive 9.58 [IQR: 6.21-13.03] and very extensive 42.67 [IQR: 21.20-42.67]. Defined categories for vitiligo extent can be valuable for inclusion criteria and may impact future reimbursement criteria.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePigment Cell & Melanoma ResearchSame topicmelanin and skin pigmentationFrench-language works237,207