Hidden gems: a pilot project to solicit and reward patients’ and caregivers’ ideas for research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients and caregivers investigate a wide range of approaches to address the signs and symptoms of their condition. Such investigation could lead to new treatment insights or avenues for research. However, currently there are few channels through which patients and families can share the results of their personal experiences; they need a platform to share their insights with the research community. METHODOLOGY: Two non-profit organizations, Global Parents for Eczema Research and the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations, developed a project to pioneer new ways for patients and caregivers to share their personal insights for research and for researchers and treatment developers to learn about those ideas. This project, the "Big Ideas for AD Research", was a global challenge that awarded prizes and recognition to patients' and caregivers' research hypotheses related to atopic dermatitis management, treatment, and prevention. RESULTS: The Challenge was open for 5 weeks and received 70 submissions from 11 countries. Entries were judged by two separate panels of experts that included both researchers and patients and caregivers. Winners were awarded with a monetary prize, recognized on social media, and connected by Global Parents for Eczema Research staff to an appropriate research group to help further their ideas. CONCLUSION: The Big Ideas for Eczema Challenge provided a proof of concept for a novel approach to bridging the gap between patients/caregivers and researchers/clinicians by developing a platform to garner the best ideas from the patient community for research. This model could be further leveraged by other patient groups to help solicit patients' and caregivers' ideas for research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".