MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409745299 · doi:10.1093/ced/llaf191

How do atopic dermatitis trialists perceive the Harmonising Outcomes Measurement in Eczema (HOME) core outcome set? A survey study from the HOME initiative

2025· article· en· W4409745299 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuval Gilad, Eric L. Simpson, Christian Apfelbacher, Phyllis I. Spuls, Kim S Thomas, Jochen Schmitt, Louise A. A. Gerbens, M. E. Jacobson, Norito Katoh, Hywel C Williams, Yael A. Leshem

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Dermatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOtto von Guericke University MagdeburgEli Lilly JapanGilead SciencesLEO PharmaBristol-Myers SquibbFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Western AustraliaOtsuka PharmaceuticalUniversiteit van AmsterdamNanyang Technological UniversityPfizerIncyteSun PharmaDermiraAmgenGemeinsame BundesausschussGenentechNational Jewish HealthRegeneron PharmaceuticalsValeant Pharmaceuticals InternationalTel Aviv UniversityEuropean CommissionSanofiGaldermaLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological UniversityEli Lilly and CompanyGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsAtopic dermatitisMedicineSet (abstract data type)Outcome (game theory)Core (optical fiber)DermatologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Harmonising Outcomes Measurement in Eczema (HOME) initiative developed a core outcome set (COS) for atopic dermatitis (AD), but uptake in trials is still limited. An online survey was sent out to corresponding authors of AD interventional randomized clinical trials to assess their awareness of the HOME COS, evaluate barriers to uptake and identify facilitators to enhance implementation. Survey respondents emphasized increasing awareness of the COS in the research community, reducing the burden associated with using the COS and ensuring applicability to diverse populations.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.544
GPT teacher head0.547
Teacher spread0.004 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental DermatologySame topicDelphi Technique in ResearchFrench-language works237,207