Responsiveness of the HUG-5 in an outpatient clinic: a 12-month randomised feasibility study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Glaucoma is a progressive, chronic condition that can have a significant impact on a patient's health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Validated, disease-specific HRQoL tools such as the Health Utility for Glaucoma (HUG-5) tool and the Glaucoma Quality of Life Questionnaire (GlauQoL-17) can be used to monitor a patient's quality of life. However, the utility of these tools in outpatient clinic practice is not well established. The primary objective of this study is to characterise the feasibility of administering periodic HRQoL questionnaires in glaucoma using a semi-automated workflow. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a single-centre, unblinded, randomised, parallel-group study with an exploratory data analysis framework. We aim to determine the feasibility of administering the HUG-5 in an outpatient clinic using a semi-automated workflow and determine patient engagement through email and telephone contact methods. We will also be investigating the association of the HUG-5 and GlauQoL-17 with patient visual field testing and visual acuity. Mean differences between groups will be tested with analysis of variance to determine if the frequency of calls affects burden, satisfaction and perceived value of information. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics board (ID: 13046) and will be conducted within Canadian Tri-Council Statement policy. Personal information of the study's participants will be anonymised with identification codes and data will be kept on an encrypted server. Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and internal meetings.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.061 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.015 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".