Global Collaborative Social Network (Share4Rare) to Promote Citizen Science in Rare Disease Research: Platform Development Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rare disease communities are spread around the globe and segmented by their condition. Little research has been performed on the majority of rare diseases. Most patients who are affected by a rare disease have no research on their condition because of a lack of knowledge due to absence of common groups in the research community. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a safe and secure community of rare disease patients, without geographic or language barriers, to promote research. METHODS: Cocreation design methodology was applied to build Share4Rare, with consultation and input through workshops from a variety of stakeholders (patients, caregivers, clinicians, and researchers). RESULTS: The workshops allowed us to develop a layered version of the platform based on educating patients and caregivers with publicly accessible information, a secure community for the patients and caregivers, and a research section with the purpose of collecting patient information for analysis, which was the core and final value of the platform. CONCLUSIONS: Rare disease research requires global collaboration in which patients and caregivers have key roles. Collective intelligence methods implemented in digital platforms reduce geographic and language boundaries and involve patients in a unique and universal project. Their contributions are essential to increase the amount of scientific knowledge that experts have on rare diseases. Share4Rare has been designed as a global platform to facilitate the donation of clinical information to foster research that matters to patients with rare conditions. The codesign methods with patients have been essential to create a patient-centric design.
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 | 0.034 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".