Developing Core Outcome Sets (COS) and Core Outcome Measures Sets (COMS) in Cosmetic Gynecological Interventions: Protocol for a Development and Usability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating cosmetic gynecological interventions have followed variable methodology and reported a diversity of outcomes. Such variations limit the comparability of studies and the value of research-based evidence. The development of core outcome sets (COS) and core outcome measures sets (COMS) would help address these issues, ensuring a minimum of outcomes important to all stakeholders, primarily women requesting or having experienced cosmetic gynecological interventions. OBJECTIVE: This protocol describes the methods used in developing a COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions. METHODS: An international steering group within CHORUS, including health care professionals, researchers, and women with experience in cosmetic gynecological interventions from 4 continents, will guide the development of COS and COMS. Potential outcome measures and outcomes will be identified through comprehensive literature reviews. These potential COS and COMS will be entered into an international, multi-perspective web-based Delphi survey where Delphi participants judge which domains will be core. A priori thresholds for consensus will get established before each Delphi round. The Delphi survey results will be evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively in subsequent stakeholder group consensus meetings in the process of establishing "core" outcomes. RESULTS: Dissemination and implementation of the resulting COS and COMS within an international context will be promoted and reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol presents the steps in developing a COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions. Embedding the COS and COMS for cosmetic gynecological interventions within future clinical trials, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines could contribute to enhancing the value of research and improving overall patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) 1592; https://tinyurl.com/n8faysuh. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/28032.
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 | 0.127 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 0.016 |
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".