MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3000784180 · doi:10.2196/16827

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Utilizing Person-Generated Health Data in the Case of Simulated Stroke Rehabilitation: Development Method

2020· article· en· W3000784180 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gerardo Luis Dimaguila, Kathleen Gray, Mark Merolli

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromOutcome (game theory)Data scienceComputer scienceMedicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Person-generated health data (PGHD) are health data that people generate, record, and analyze for themselves. Although the health benefits of PGHD use have been reported, there is no systematic way for patients to measure and report the health effects they experience from using their PGHD. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow patients to systematically self-report their outcomes of a health care service. They generate first-hand evidence of the impact of health care services and are able to reflect the real-world diversity of actual patients and management approaches. Therefore, this paper argues that a PROM of utilizing PGHD, or PROM-PGHD, is necessary to help build evidence-based practice in clinical work with PGHD. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe a method for developing PROMs for people who are using PGHD in conjunction with their clinical care-PROM-PGHD, and the method is illustrated through a case study. METHODS: The five-step qualitative item review (QIR) method was augmented to guide the development of a PROM-PGHD. However, using QIR as a guide to develop a PROM-PGHD requires additional socio-technical consideration of the PGHD and the health technologies from which they are produced. Therefore, the QIR method is augmented for developing a PROM-PGHD, resulting in the PROM-PGHD development method. RESULTS: A worked example was used to illustrate how the PROM-PGHD development method may be used systematically to develop PROMs applicable across a range of PGHD technology types used in relation to various health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: This paper describes and illustrates a method for developing a PROM-PGHD, which may be applied to many different cases of health conditions and technology categories. When applied to other cases of health conditions and technology categories, the method could have broad relevance for evidence-based practice in clinical work with PGHD.

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)0.163
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.264
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1630.264
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.607
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.020 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→French-language works237,207→