Readability and Quality Assessment of Online Materials for Syndactyly Release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syndactyly is one of the most common congenital hand malformations, involving an abnormal fusion of digits and with treatment varying according to its complexity. The internet has become a primary source of information for both families and patients with congenital hand anomalies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both the readability and quality of available web content for syndactyly, using validated instruments. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted searches for "Syndactyly" using three of the largest online search engines: Bing, Google, and Yahoo. The top 10 websites for each search engine, along with any webpage within one click of the parent website, were analyzed. Readability was assessed using seven established quantitative tests. The quality of the web pages was analyzed using the Discern questionnaire and handbook. RESULTS: A total of 15 websites were included in the analysis. The average readability of all websites was equivalent to comprehension at a grade 11.3 level. The average Flesch reading ease score was 49.3 out of 100, which is considered difficult to read. Quality was assessed using Discern, a brief questionnaire consisting of 16 questions with five points attributed per question. The mean quality score using Discern was 33.3 points out of a maximum of 80 points. CONCLUSIONS: Online materials pertaining to the treatment of syndactyly far exceed the recommended sixth-grade reading level, and lack in terms of quality and comprehensiveness of information. Health care professionals should be cognizant of the paucity of available online information and provide patients with more appropriate resources.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".