MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404837273 · doi:10.2196/54525

Standardized Outcomes for Randomized Controlled Trials Targeting Early Interventions in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Protocol for the Development of a Core Outcome Set

2024· article· en· W4404837273 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raphaël Cinotti, Yvan Derouin, Amandine Chenet, L. Oujamaa, Bertrand Glize, Yoann Launey, Claire Dahyot‐Fizelier, Emmanuelle Cartron, Melodie Renvoise, Bénédicte Sautenet, Véronique Sebille

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUnion des Blessés de la Face et de la Tête
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineProtocol (science)Traumatic brain injuryPsychological interventionPreprintOutcome (game theory)Intervention (counseling)PsychiatryAlternative medicineSurgeryComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With more than 60 million new cases around the world each year, traumatic brain injury (TBI) causes substantial mortality and morbidity. Managing TBI is a major human, social, and economic concern. In the last 20 years, there has been an increase in clinical trials in neurocritical care, leading mostly to negative results. The evaluation of neurological outcomes, predominantly as primary outcomes, using clinical scales (Glasgow Outcome Scale) has limitations that could explain these results. Moreover, patient-centered outcomes are seldom reported despite their recognized clinical relevance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project is to establish a core outcome set (COS) for patients with moderate-to-severe TBI in randomized control trials in neurocritical care research. METHODS: This study will follow five distinct steps: (1) systematic review to identify outcomes that have been reported in trials; (2) semistructured interviews with patients and their families to identify their priorities after TBI and explore potential patient-centered outcomes; (3) health care stakeholder focus groups with clinicians, researchers, and policy makers to describe potential outcomes; (4) an eDelphi survey with stakeholder groups to make a list of previously identified core outcomes; and (5) a consensus workshop to establish a COS for moderate-to-severe TBI clinical trials. RESULTS: : The systematic review was published in August 2024. Regarding Step 2, 30 semistructured interviews of patients and relatives were performed from July 2021 to December 2023, and analyses were completed in October 2024. Step 3 is currently under development, and Step 4 is planned for the end of 2025. Step 5 is expected to occur during fall/winter 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Establishing a COS, to be consistently measured and reported in TBI trials in neurocritical care will ensure rigorous reporting, avoid bias, and improve the integrity, transparency, and usability of clinical research. The French context of the study is the main limitation, but we are seeking international collaboration on the project. The results of each step of the project will be disseminated through abstracts, publications, and patient associations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54525.

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)0.180
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.173
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1800.173
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.017
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0120.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0510.015

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 head0.615
GPT teacher head0.669
Teacher spread0.055 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreProtocol

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 venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207