MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2946712789 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.181085

Developing a Preliminary Definition and Domains of Flare in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis (OA): Consensus Building of the Flare-in-OA OMERACT Group

2019· article· en· W2946712789 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Françis Guillemin, Camille Ricatte, Annica Barcenilla‐Wong, Amandine Schoumacker, Marita Cross, Camille Alleyrat, Thomas Buttel, Michel Cembalo, Hakima Manseur, Hema Urban, Bruno Fautrel, Philip G. Conaghan, Gillian Hawker, Claudia Rutherford, Lyn March, Élisabeth Spitz, David J. Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeeds Biomedical Research CentreArthritis AustraliaNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineFlareOsteoarthritisExacerbationPhysical therapyDelphi methodDelphiFocus groupInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flare in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) is more than just an exacerbation of pain. Unstructured, semistructured, and focus group interviews followed by Delphi surveys with patients and health professionals (HP) generated candidate domains of an OA flare. Content analysis of interviews with 29 patients and 16 HP extracted 180 statements, which were grouped into 9 clusters. Delphi consensus with 50 patients (Australia, Canada, and France) and 116 HP (17 countries on 4 continents) identified 5 flare domains: pain, swelling, stiffness, psychological aspects, and effect of symptoms. Elements for a preliminary definition of an OA flare are proposed. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov NCT02892058.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→