MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366983431 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-060699

Engaging pregnant individuals and healthcare professionals in an international mixed methods study to develop a core outcome set for studies on placenta accreta spectrum disorder (COPAS): a study protocol

2023· article· en· W4366983431 on OpenAlexaff
Susan O’Rinn, Jon Barrett, Janet Parsons, John‏ Kingdom, Rohan D’Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal and fetal healthcare
Canadian institutionsImpactUniversity of TorontoCentre for Global Health ResearchMcMaster UniversityMount Sinai HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodInclusion (mineral)Protocol (science)Health careQualitative researchFamily medicineNursingAlternative medicinePsychologyPathologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorder is a life-threatening condition that may result in serious maternal complications, including mortality. The placenta which is pathologically adherent to the uterine wall, places individuals at high risk of major haemorrhage during the third stage of labour. Current research reports on PAS disorder outcomes have highly variable levels of information, which is therefore difficult for investigators to aggregate to inform practice. There is an urgent need to harmonise data collection in prospective studies to identify and implement best practices for management. One approach to standardise outcomes across any health area via the use of core outcome sets (COSs), which are consensus-derived standardised sets of outcomes that all studies for a particular condition should measure and report. This protocol outlines the steps for developing a COS for PAS disorder (COPAS). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol outlines steps for the creation of COPAS. The first step, a systematic review, will identify all reported outcomes in the scientific literature. The second step will use qualitative one-on-one interviews to identify additional outcomes identified as important by patients and healthcare professionals that are not reported in the published literature. Outcomes from the first two steps will be combined to form an outcome inventory. This outcome inventory will inform the third step which is a Delphi survey that encourages agreement between patients and healthcare professionals on which outcomes are most important for inclusion in the COS. The fourth step, a consensus group meeting of representative participants, will finalise outcomes for inclusion in the PAS disorder COS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has obtained Research Ethics Board approval from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre (#2338, #1488). We will aim to publish the study findings in an international peer-reviewed OBGYN journal. REGISTRATION DETAILS: COMET Core Outcome Set Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1127. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173426.

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)0.174
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.149
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1740.149
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.009

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 head0.491
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.162 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMaternal and fetal healthcareFrench-language works237,207