MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241667302 · doi:10.1111/bjd.16627

Reliability and validity of the instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for epidermolysis bullosa (iscorEB)

2018· article· en· W4241667302 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A.L. Bruckner, D.L. Fairclough, J.A. Feinstein, I. Lara-Corrales, A.W. Lucky, J. Tolar, E. Pope

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidermolysis bullosaMedicineContext (archaeology)DiseaseDermatologyPerspective (graphical)Severity of illnessPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of rare genetic blistering disorders that affects the skin and occasionally internal organs. Accurate estimates of disease severity of such complex disease in the context of research is difficult. We developed a tool called instrument for scoring clinical outcomes of research for Epidermolysis Bullosa (iscorEB) with the goal to assess the disease severity from both physician's and patient's perspective. In the current paper, we report the data from testing the iscorEB in 2 institutions from Canada and the USA. Thirty‐one patients and six physicians from various medical specialties took part in a study to demonstrate how consistent and good the score was at assessing the disease severity. We found that there was good agreement between physicians and between physicians and patients. We also demonstrated that iscorEB is able to differentiate between patients with mild, moderate and severe disease and between subtypes of EB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207