Peer Review #3 of "Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND) (v0.2)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about trials conducted using the cohort.When trials are conducted in the cohort, participants randomized to the intervention are informed and must consent to access the intervention.Participants randomized to control are not informed that they have not received an intervention.All participants eligible and randomized to participate in the trial are included in analyses on an intent-to-treat basis.Cohort participants with a Cochin Hand Function Scale score ≥ 3/90 and an interest in using an online hand-exercise intervention were randomized (1:1 ratio) to be offered usual care plus the SPIN-HAND Program or usual care for 3 months.User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews.Results: Of 40 participants randomized: 24 were allocated to SPIN-HAND and 16 to usual care.Of 24 participants randomized to be offered SPIN-HAND, 15 (63%) consented to use the program.Usage of SPIN-HAND content among the 15 participants who consented to use the program was low; only 5 (33%) logged in more than twice.Participants found the content relevant and easy to understand (satisfaction rating 8.5/10, N=6).Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly.Required technical support was minimal.Conclusions: Trial methodology functioned as designed, and the SPIN-HAND Program was feasibly delivered, but acceptance of the offer and use of program content among accepters were low.Adjustments to information provided to potential participants will be implemented in the full-scale SPIN-HAND trial to attempt to increase offer acceptance.
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 | 0.040 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.471 | 0.166 |
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".