International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a patient-reported outcome instrument for children and adolescents with lower limb deformities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our recent systematic review has indicated the lack of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of children and adolescents with lower limb deformities. We are developing a PRO instrument which will be applicable internationally across various countries. This manuscript describes our approach to the development of a new PRO instrument for measuring HRQOL for children and adolescents with lower limb deformities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Three phases in the development of this PRO instrument are as described: (1) This phase involves the development of a conceptual framework of HRQOL and item pool that is used to inform a set of preliminary scales. We have developed a preliminary conceptual framework of HRQOL based on our systematic review. Qualitative interviews are being conducted at five sites in Canada, Ethiopia, India and the USA. An item pool will be generated from this qualitative phase. The preliminary items and scales will be sent out to children at the five participating centres. Cognitive debriefing interviews will gather detailed feedback on the items from the children. Expert opinion will be sought from clinicians from the participating centres. (2) During this phase, an international field-test study will be conducted to refine the scales and examine their psychometric properties. (3) During this phase, tests of reliability, validity and responsiveness will be conducted. Phase 1 will also involve translations and cultural adaptations. At the end of this study, we expect to produce an internationally applicable PRO instrument which is scientifically sound and clinically relevant to the lower limb deformity population. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study is approved by Research Ethics Boards for each of the participating sites.Results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. An integrated knowledge translation approach is applied to engage patients, families and clinicians from the start of the study.
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 | 0.105 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.012 |
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".