MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408778175 · doi:10.1177/13591053251325690

Improving myalgic encephalomyelitis population sampling: Applying an online respondent-driven method to address biases in G93.3 register data

2025· article· en· W4408778175 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Kielland, Jing Liu, Guri Tyldum, Leonard A. Jason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentSampling frameSelection biasSample (material)Sampling (signal processing)PopulationRegister (sociolinguistics)Sampling biasPsychologyMedicineStatisticsComputer scienceSample size determinationEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With widespread late- and under-diagnosing, health register code G93.3 data cannot offer an unbiased sampling frame for myalgic encephalomyelitis, complicating prevalence and demographic distribution assessments. It also remains unclear if all G93.3 cases would meet the Canada Consensus Criteria (CCC). This article describes a novel methodological approach to addressing selection bias when estimating a CCC population's characteristics, applying an online respondent-driven sampling approach and validated DePaul University algorithms. In a sample of 660 respondents, we assess possible bias in the G93.3 diagnosis by regressing sociodemographic factors on G93.3 status, controlling for medical factors. Results support suggestions that G93.3 register data are biased against those socially deprived.

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)0.143
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.260
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1430.260
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.326
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
DomainMethods
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicFibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ResearchFrench-language works237,207