Recursive Partitioning vs Computerized Adaptive Testing to Reduce the Burden of Health Assessments in Cleft Lip and/or Palate: Comparative Simulation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) has been shown to deliver short, accurate, and personalized versions of the CLEFT-Q patient-reported outcome measure for children and young adults born with a cleft lip and/or palate. Decision trees may integrate clinician-reported data (eg, age, gender, cleft type, and planned treatments) to make these assessments even shorter and more accurate. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to create decision tree models incorporating clinician-reported data into adaptive CLEFT-Q assessments and compare their accuracy to traditional CAT models. METHODS: We used relevant clinician-reported data and patient-reported item responses from the CLEFT-Q field test to train and test decision tree models using recursive partitioning. We compared the prediction accuracy of decision trees to CAT assessments of similar length. Participant scores from the full-length questionnaire were used as ground truth. Accuracy was assessed through Pearson's correlation coefficient of predicted and ground truth scores, mean absolute error, root mean squared error, and a two-tailed Wilcoxon signed-rank test comparing squared error. RESULTS: Decision trees demonstrated poorer accuracy than CAT comparators and generally made data splits based on item responses rather than clinician-reported data. CONCLUSIONS: When predicting CLEFT-Q scores, individual item responses are generally more informative than clinician-reported data. Decision trees that make binary splits are at risk of underfitting polytomous patient-reported outcome measure data and demonstrated poorer performance than CATs in this study.
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 | 0.012 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".