Psychometric properties of disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments for food allergy and food intolerance: protocol for a COSMIN-based systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Food allergies and food intolerances can bring burdens on patients and their caregivers and reduce health-related quality of life (HRQoL). An increasing number of disease-specific HRQoL instruments for food allergies and food intolerances has been developed, and some of them have been adapted for different cultures and languages. This report describes a protocol for a systematic review of the psychometric properties of these instruments. The aims of this systematic review are to: (1) formulate recommendations for the usage of existing validated disease-specific HRQoL instruments for patients with food allergies and/or food intolerances and their caregivers; and (2) identify knowledge gaps to inform future research relating to these instruments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) 2015 checklist. The future review will follow the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and PRISMA 2020 statement guideline. Six databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and ProQuest -Health & Medical Collection) will be searched to retrieve studies focusing on the development and psychometric properties of disease-specific HRQoL instruments for patients with food allergies and/or food intolerances and their caregivers between 1 December 2021 and 31 December 2021. Two researchers will be responsible for literature screening, data extraction and literature evaluation, independently. Disagreements will be addressed by discussion or the involvement of a third researcher. The methodological quality of the included studies and the quality of the identified instruments will be assessed based on the COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of PROMs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not applicable for this study. We will disseminate the findings through publication in peer-reviewed journals and/or academic conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021252203.
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 | 0.119 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.009 |
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".