MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401551968 · doi:10.1002/acr.25415

Development of the 2023 <scp>ACR/EULAR</scp> Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III‐D Report: Multicriteria Decision Analysis

2024· article· en· W4401551968 on OpenAlexaff
Medha Barbhaiya, Stéphane Zuily, Mary‐Carmen Amigo, Danieli Andrade, Tadej Avčin, María Laura Bertolaccini, D. Ware Branch, N. Costedoat‐Chalumeau, Mark Crowther, Guilherme Ramires de Jesús, Katrien Devreese, Camille Françès, David García, José A. Gómez‐Puerta, Françis Guillemin, Steven R. Levine, Roger A. Levy, Michael D. Lockshin, Thomas L. Ortel, Michelle Petri, Giovanni Sanna, Savino Sciascia, Surya V. Seshan, Maria G. Tektonidou, Denis Wahl, Rohan Willis, Cécile Yelnik, Alison Hendry, Ray Naden, Karen H. Costenbader, Doruk Erkan

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesRheumatology Research Foundation
KeywordsMultiple-criteria decision analysisPairwise comparisonAntiphospholipid syndromeMedicineStatisticsInternal medicineMathematicsOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed to identify patients with high likelihood of APS for research, employed a four-phase methodology. Phase I and II resulted in 27 proposed candidate criteria, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score. METHODS: We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world patients referred for "suspected APS" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have APS. During an in-person meeting, the subcommittee refined definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise to identify relative weights of candidate criteria. Using consensus decisions and pairwise criteria comparisons, 1000Minds software assigned criteria weights, and we rank ordered 192 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set. RESULTS: Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients by weights and additive scores, the Steering Committee reached consensus that APS classification should require separate clinical and laboratory scores, rather than a single-aggregate score, to ensure high specificity. CONCLUSION: Using MCDA, candidate criteria preliminary weights were determined. Unlike other disease classification systems using a single-aggregate threshold score, separate clinical and laboratory domain thresholds were incorporated into the new APS classification criteria.

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)0.095
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0950.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.355 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & Research→Same topicSystemic Lupus Erythematosus Research→French-language works237,207→