The quality, suitability, and readability of web-based resources on endometriosis-associated dyspareunia: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People commonly and increasingly rely on the internet to search for health information, including those related to endometriosis-associated dyspareunia. Yet the content of such websites may be of variable accuracy and quality. This review aims to evaluate the quality, readability, and suitability of web-based resources on endometriosis-associated dyspareunia for patients. We searched 3 databases - Google, Bing, and Yahoo - to identify websites related to endometriosis-associated dyspareunia. Two independent reviewers screened the search results against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Another set of two reviewers evaluated the selected websites using validated measurement instruments. Out of 450 websites, 21 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. More than half of the websites had information on content updates, reported on authorship, or disclosed sponsorship information. The mean quality and suitability scores were 47.5 (SD = 13.3) and 65.2 (SD = 13.6) respectively, thus suggesting generally adequate quality and suitability levels. However, the mean readability scores exceeded the recommended level for health-related websites. The poor readability of the websites might limit accessibility for a significant proportion of patients with low educational levels. The findings of this review have implications for designing high-quality, readable and up-to-date web interventions for people who rely on web platforms as an alternative or complementary source of health information on dyspareunia.
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.
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 | 0.101 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 it