Developing an Edema Clinician-Reported Outcome Measure for Nephrotic Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Edema is a common manifestation of proteinuric kidney diseases, but there is no consensus approach for reliably evaluating edema. The objective of this study was to develop an edema clinician-reported outcome measure for use in patients with nephrotic syndrome. Methods: A literature review was conducted to assess existing clinician-rated measures of edema. Clinical experts were recruited from internal medicine, nephrology, and pediatric nephrology practices to participate in concept elicitation using semi-structured interviews and cognitive debriefing. Qualitative analysis methods were used to collate expert input and inform measurement development. In addition, training and assessment modules were developed using an iterative process that also utilized expert input and cognitive debriefing to ensure interrater reliability. Results: While several clinician-rated measures of edema have been proposed, our literature review did not identify any studies to support the reliability or validity of these measures. Fourteen clinician experts participated in the concept elicitation interviews, and twelve participated in cognitive debriefing. A clinician-reported outcome measure for edema was developed. The measure assesses edema severity in multiple individual body parts. An online training module and assessment tool were generated and refined using additional clinician input and investigative team expertise. Conclusion: The Edema ClinRO (V1) measure is developed specifically to measure edema in nephrotic syndrome. The tool assesses edema across multiple body parts, and it includes a training module to ensure standardized administration across raters. Future examination of this measure is ongoing to establish its reliability and validity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".