MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225265602 · doi:10.1007/s40123-022-00514-x

The State of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Pediatric Patients with Inherited Retinal Disease

2022· review· en· W4225265602 on OpenAlexafffund
Kavin Selvan, Maria Fernanda Abalem, Gabrielle D. Lacy, Ajoy Vincent, Elise Héon

Bibliographic record

VenueOphthalmology and Therapy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoFoundation Fighting Blindness
KeywordsMedicinePatient-reported outcomePromContext (archaeology)MEDLINEPopulationDiseaseVisual acuityQuality of life (healthcare)PediatricsFamily medicineOphthalmologyPathologyNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that assess health outcomes meaningful to the patient. PROMs have multiple applications, such as supporting clinicians’ decision-making for patient care, understanding the impact of disease on patient functioning, and evaluating the efficacy of therapeutics. Though PROMs were developed for various eye conditions, no PROM was tailored to pediatric patients with inherited retinal disease (IRD). Hence, a literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and Embase to identify PROMs potentially relevant to this patient population. This review evaluated selected pediatric PROMs against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and found restricted use in the context of IRD. As there is a need for PROMs tailored to pediatric patients with IRD, we provide a perspective on applying the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and FDA standards on the development of PROMs specific to IRD. Inherited retinal diseases refer to a group of genetic conditions that affect the eye’s light-sensing cells and lead to vision loss. When a patient undergoes an eye assessment, the measures used are technical (e.g., visual acuity, visual field) and do not routinely address the patient’s experience. It is increasingly evident that the technical tools used do not really reflect how patients’ vision affects their daily lives. Questionnaires designed to assess how a condition impacts a daily activity are referred to as patient-reported outcome measures. The perspective of the impact of a condition on daily activities differs between adults and children. These tools are being created to evaluate health outcomes important to the patient on the basis of their condition and age. This is especially important when determining the value of therapies from the patient perspective. To date, no such questionnaire has been designed for pediatric patients with inherited retinal disease, an important cause of blindness. We explored the literature to evaluate existing pediatric vision tools and found that those could not be used to fill this gap. Given that we found a need to develop questionnaires tailored to pediatric patients with IRD, we also provide insight into how such a tool can be created for this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.191
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.191
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOphthalmology and TherapySame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207