MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Surgical Procedural Definitions for Hidradenitis Suppurativa Developed by Expert Delphi Consensus

2023· article· en· W4321495335 on OpenAlex
Helen Bui, Falk G. Bechara, Ralph George, Stephanie R. Goldberg, Iltefat Hamzavi, Joslyn S. Kirby, Drew K. Saylor, Christopher J. Sayed

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Dermatology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsHidradenitis suppurativaMedicineMEDLINEDermatologyDelphi methodDelphiSurgeryDiseasePathologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Various surgical approaches for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have been described in the literature, but the nomenclature is inconsistent. Excisions have been described as wide, local, radical, and regional with variable descriptions of margins. Deroofing procedures have been described with various approaches though descriptions of the approach are generally more uniform. No international consensus has been formed to globally standardize terminology for HS surgical procedures. Lack of such agreement may contribute to misunderstanding or misclassification in HS procedural research studies and impair clear communication among clinicians or between clinicians and patients. Objective: To create a set of standard definitions for HS surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This consensus agreement study was conducted from January to May 2021 using the modified Delphi consensus method to reach agreement among a group of international HS experts regarding standardized definitions for an initial set of HS surgical terms, including "incision and drainage," "deroofing/unroofing," "excision," "lesional excision," and "regional excision," ultimately expanded to 10 terms. Provisional definitions were drafted based on existing literature and discussion among an expert 8-member steering committee. Online surveys were disseminated to members of the HS Foundation, direct contacts of the expert panel, and the HSPlace listserv to reach physicians with considerable experience with HS surgery. Consensus was defined as greater than 70% agreement to accept a definition. Results: In the first and second modified Delphi round, 50 and 33 experts participated, respectively. Ten surgical procedural terms and definitions reached consensus with greater than 80% agreement. Overall, the term "local" excision was abandoned and replaced with the descriptors "lesional" or "regional" excision. Of note, "regional" replaced the terms "wide" and "radical" excision. Furthermore, modifiers such as "partial" vs "complete" should also be included when describing surgical procedures. A combination of these terms helped formulate the final glossary of HS surgical procedural definitions. Conclusion and Relevance: An international group of HS experts agreed on a set of definitions describing surgical procedures frequently used by clinicians and in the literature. The standardization and application of such definitions are vital to allow for accurate communication, reporting consistency, and uniform data collection and study design in the future.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.267 · 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