Contributions and recognition of patient partners in pediatric health research: a rapid scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this rapid scoping review is to: 1) assess the prevalence of acknowledgement and authorship of patient partners in pediatric health research; 2) understand how patient partners contribute through the research process; and 3) assess how patient engagement is identified in publications.Introduction: Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is an area of increasing interest and activity, with growing funding opportunities. Patient partners with significant contributions to a research project may be eligible for formal acknowledgment or authorship, however locating patient-engaged studies is difficult and time consuming, so there is little understanding of the prevalence of patient partner acknowledgement or authorship and how patient partners typically contribute to research projects.Inclusion criteria: This rapid scoping review will consider evidence sources that investigate topics related to pediatric patients aged (0-19 years) and that include acknowledgement or descriptions of one or more patient partner(s) contributions in one or more studies. We will exclude sources that include non-pediatric patients, are not in English, and not published in full in a journal (e.g. conference abstracts).Methods: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). In addition, we will search key sources of POR literature. To increase the rapidity of this review, only 25% of sources will be reviewed and extracted by two team members and the remaining sources will be screened and extracted by a single reviewer. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool developed by the reviewers. The results will be presented in a tabular/and/or charted format and accompanied by a narrative summary describing how the results related to the review objectives and questions.
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 | 0.209 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.020 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".