MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3155993713 · doi:10.2196/23174

Descriptive Review of Online Information Resources for People With Stroke: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2021· review· en· W3155993713 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gakeemah Inglis-Jassiem, Karen Grimmer, Thandi Conradie, Quinette Louw

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsProtocol (science)Stroke (engine)Computer scienceMedical educationPsychologyMedicineData scienceAlternative medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: People with stroke and their caregivers experience numerous information needs; internet-based resources may offer cost-effective ways to improve access to information about this condition and its management, including the availability of resources and support. The quality of online health information is, therefore, an important consideration for both developers and consumers of these online resources. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to map and evaluate the content, readability, understandability, design, and quality characteristics of freely available online information resources (ie, websites) that empower people with stroke and their caregivers with information and self-help strategies poststroke. METHODS: This descriptive review will follow the five systematic and rigorous methodological steps that are recommended for scoping reviews, which include the following: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting the studies, (4) charting the data, and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Data will then be synthesized and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: As of February 2021, the scoping review is in the data extraction stage. Data will be synthesized, and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal in August 2021. In addition, we will develop an accessible summary of the results for stakeholder meetings. Ethical approval is not required for this review, as it will only include publicly available information. CONCLUSIONS: This study is novel and will evaluate the typology, content, and design-related criteria, including accessibility, aesthetics, navigability, interactivity, privacy, and data protection, of online information resources for stroke. The review will be limited to online resources published in English. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/23174.

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)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0160.017
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.015

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 head0.576
GPT teacher head0.718
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility→French-language works237,207→