MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3135119575 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.201679

Instruments Measuring Physical Function for Psoriatic Arthritis Endorsed at GRAPPA 2020 Annual Meeting: Updates of the GRAPPA-OMERACT Working Group

2021· article· en· W3135119575 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ying Ying Leung, Ana‐Maria Orbai, William Tillett, Alexis Ogdie, Lihi Eder, Niti Goel, Pil Højgaard, Richard Holland, Ashish Jacob Mathew, Christine A. Lindsay, Anna Antony, Jeffrey Chau, Robin Christensen, Laura C. Coates, Philip J. Mease, Vibeke Strand, Oliver FitzGerald, Maarten de Wit, Kristina Callis Duffin, Dafna D. Gladman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkWomen's College Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsoriatic arthritisMedicineEnthesitisPhysical therapyPsoriasisRheumatologyInternal medicineDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA)-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) Working Group provided updates at the 2020 GRAPPA annual meeting on its work toward developing a core outcome set for PsA. Working groups were set up for the 4 prioritized domains: enthesitis, fatigue, structural damage, and physical function. Two instruments for measurement of physical function were provisionally endorsed: (1) the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index and (2) the physical functioning domain in the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form survey.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Rheumatology→Same topicDelphi Technique in Research→French-language works237,207→