Oral lichen planus clinician reported outcome measure: Development, content validity, and further development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To establish and test a clinician-reported outcome measure of oral lichen planus (OLP): OLP Investigator global assessment (IGA). METHODS: OLP IGA scale was tested with retrospective data from clinical practice and a phase II clinical trial. A comparison of the OLP IGA score with patient-reported outcomes was completed. RESULTS: Clinical Practice: The mean (SD) OLP IGA score (0-4) in 107 OLP patients was 1.8 (1.0) with correlation of 0.25-0.48 (p value 0.01 - <0.0001) with symptom scores. There was a significant increase in OLP symptoms based on OLP IGA score. CLINICAL TRIAL: The mean (SD) OLP IGA score in 137 research participants was 2.5 (1.2) with correlation of 0.43-0.52 (all p values <0.0001) with symptoms scores. There was a significant increase in OLP symptoms based on OLP IGA score. Forty-seven (35%) participants in the phase 2 study had an improvement in the OLP IGA score of ≥2. There were significant improvements in all symptoms scores in relation to the change in IGA score. CONCLUSIONS: The OLP IGA is designed to assess changes in symptomatic OLP lesions and is appropriate for use across the full range of symptomatic OLP severity and represents a scale with utility in clinical practice and clinical trials.
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 | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".