MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methodology used to develop the minimum common data elements for surveillance and Reporting of Musculoskeletal Injuries in the MILitary (ROMMIL) statement

2024· preprint· en· W4402446660 on OpenAlexaff
Garrett S. Bullock, Joanne L. Fallowfield, Sarah J. de la Motte, Nigel Arden, Ben Fisher, Adam Dooley, Neil Forrest, John J. Fraser, Alysia Gourlay, Ben Hando, Katherine Harrison, Debra Hayhurst, Joseph M. Molloy, Phil Newman, Eric Robitaille, Deydre S. Teyhen, Jeffrey M Tiede, Emma Williams, Sandra Williams, Damien Van Tiggelen, Joshua J. Van Wyngaarden, Richard B. Westrick, Carolyn A. Emery, Gary S. Collins, Daniel I. Rhon

Bibliographic record

VenueF1000Research · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryDepartment of National Defence
FundersUniformed Services University of the Health SciencesU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsDelphi methodDelphiLikert scaleSubject-matter expertMedicineScope (computer science)Medical educationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The objective was to summarize the methodology used to develop the international minimum data elements for surveillance and Reporting of Musculoskeletal Injuries in the MILitary (ROMMIL) statement. This is a recommended list of elements to be collected and reported when conducting injury surveillance research in military settings. Methods: A Delphi methodology was employed to reach consensus. Preliminary steps included conducting a literature review and surveying a convenience sample of military stakeholders to 1) identify barriers and facilitators of military musculoskeletal injury (MSKI) prevention programs, 2) identify relevant knowledge gaps, and 3) establish future research priorities. A sequential three-round Delphi consensus survey followed, including relevant stakeholders from militaries around the world, using results to conduct an asynchronous knowledge user meeting (mixture of in-person and live video conference and recording) to explore the level of agreement among subject matter experts. Knowledge users, including former and current military service members, civilian practitioners working in military health networks, and international subject matter experts having experience with policy, execution, or clinical investigation of MSKI mitigation programs, MSKI diagnoses, and MSKI risk factors in military settings. For each round, participants scored questions on a Likert scale of 1-5. Scores ranged from No Importance (1) to Strong Importance (5). Results: Literature review and surveys helped inform the scope of potential variables. Three rounds were necessary to reach minimum consensus. Ninety-five, 65, and 42 respondents participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. Conclusions: Achieving consensus across relevant knowledge users representing military organizations globally can be challenging. This paper details the methodology employed to reach consensus for a core minimum data elements checklist for conducting MSKI research in military settings and improve data harmonization and scalability efforts. These methods can be used as a resource to assist in future consensus endeavors of similar nature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.057
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0570.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.616
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.032 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueF1000ResearchSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207