World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Development of a core outcome set for oral lichen planus: the patient perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the lived experience of patients with oral lichen planus (OLP) and investigate what treatment-related outcomes are the most important to them and should be included in a core outcome set (COS) for OLP. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative study involving focus group work with 10 participants was conducted. Interviews with each focus group were held twice: session 1 explored the lived experience of patients with OLP, and session 2 allowed patients to review a summary of the outcome domains used in the OLP literature to date. The discussions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using framework analysis. RESULTS: In session 1, 4 themes and 8 sub-themes emerged from the data analysis. An additional outcome, 'knowledge of family and friends,' was suggested in session 2. CONCLUSIONS: We have gained valuable insight into the lived experience of patients with OLP via this qualitative study. To our knowledge, this study is the first to explore the patient perspective on what should be measured in clinical trials on OLP, highlighting an important additional suggested outcome. This additional outcome will be voted upon in a consensus process to determine a minimum COS for OLP.
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 | 0.039 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".