MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190701702 · doi:10.1002/lio2.629

Quality and readability of online information on idiopathic subglottic stenosis

2021· article· en· W3190701702 on OpenAlexaff
Austin Heffernan, Amanda Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityMedicineStenosisQuality (philosophy)Quality ScoreReading (process)Medical physicsInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective Idiopathic subglottic stenosis (ISS) is a chronic condition characterized by disease recurrence and multiple surgeries. These frustrated patients may utilize the internet to research their condition. The aim of this study was to determine the quality and readability of online ISS information. Methods “Idiopathic subglottic stenosis” was entered into Google. The first 50 websites that met inclusion criteria were extracted. The DISCERN instrument, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) assessed the quality and readability, respectively. Means, SDs, Pearson correlation coefficients, and two‐tailed Student's t ‐test were calculated. Results The 50 websites consisted of 17 patient‐targeted and 33 professional‐targeted websites, plus 30 major and 20 minor websites. The overall DISCERN, FRES, and FKGL scores were 2.81 ± 0.99, 27.75 ± 15.27, and 13.65 ± 2.79, respectively (mean ± SD). Patient‐targeted websites had significantly lower quality (DISCERN [ P < .00]) but were easier to read (lower FKGL [ P < .00], higher FRES [ P < .00]) than professional‐targeted websites. Minor websites had a significantly lower quality (DISCERN [ P < 0.00]) but were easier to read (lower FKGL [ P < .00], higher FRES [ P < .00]) than major websites. There was a positive correlation between overall quality and difficulty in readability. Conclusion The quality of online ISS information was suboptimal. Resources were too difficult to comprehend and readability scores were above AMA and NIH recommendations. Improved online information is required to properly educate this patient population. Level of Evidence Level 4.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaryngoscope Investigative OtolaryngologySame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207