MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318183967 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljac145

Core outcome domains for lichen sclerosus: a CORALS initiative consensus statement

2023· article· en· W4318183967 on OpenAlexaff
Rosalind Simpson, Gudula Kirtschig, Amanda Selk, S. von Seitzberg, Gitte Vittrup, Ione Bissonnette, Jan Kottner, Jaclyn Lanthier, Chris Stanton, David C. Foster, Martin Promm, Angelo Augenti, Stefano Lauretti, Kim S Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of NottinghamBritish Association of DermatologistsNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsLichen sclerosusStatement (logic)Outcome (game theory)MedicineCore (optical fiber)DermatologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic inflammatory condition mainly affecting genital skin. It causes distressing symptoms that impact daily quality of life (QoL). It causes progressive anatomical changes and a potential risk of cancer. Published randomized controlled trials are of varying methodological quality and difficult to combine in meta-analyses. This is partly due to lack of agreed outcome measures to assess treatment response. Identification of core outcome sets (COSs), which standardize key outcomes to be measured in all future trials, is a solution to this problem. OBJECTIVES: To obtain international agreement on which outcome domains should be measured in interventional trials of genital LS. METHODS: Recommended best practice for COS domain development was followed: (i) identification of potential outcome domains: a long list was generated through an up-to-date LS literature search, including information collected during the LS priority-setting partnership; (ii) provisional agreement of outcome domains: a three-stage multi-stakeholder international electronic-Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus study; (iii) final agreement of outcome domains: online consensus meeting with international stakeholders including anonymized voting. RESULTS: In total, 123 participants (77 patients, 44 health professionals, 2 researchers) from 20 countries completed three rounds of the e-Delphi study. Eleven outcome domains were rated as 'critical' and were discussed at the online consensus meetings. The first set of consensus meetings involved 42 participants from 12 countries. Consensus was met for 'symptoms' (100% agreed) and 'QoL - LS-specific' (92% agreed). After the second set of meetings, involving 29 participants from 12 countries, 'clinical (visible) signs' also met consensus (97% agreed). CONCLUSIONS: The international community has agreed on three key outcome domains to measure in all future LS clinical trials. We recommend that trialists and systematic reviewers incorporate these domains into study protocols with immediate effect. CORALS will now work with stakeholders to select an outcome measurement instrument per prioritized core domain.

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)0.290
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.249
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2900.249
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.013
Bibliometrics0.0100.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0090.015
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.244
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207