Protocol for the development of a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with hypospadias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) do not meet accepted international criteria for measuring health outcomes of hypospadias treatment. This protocol describes the qualitative development (phase I) of a novel PROM to evaluate outcomes of hypospadias treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Participants aged 7 years and older with hypospadias and caregivers of children under 8 years seeking treatment at Boston Children's Hospital, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO), Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and McMaster Children's Hospital), will be invited to participate in concept elicitation and cognitive interviews. Concept elicitation interviews will be in-depth and semi-structured to understand concepts important to patients seeking treatment for hypospadias. Cognitive interviews will be performed concurrently to ensure that the scale items, instructions and response options are relevant, understandable and comprehensive. Cognitive interviews will be complemented by expert input. Concept elicitation and cognitive interview transcripts will be coded line-by-line. Participant quotes will be categorised into top-level domains, themes and subthemes. The primary outcome of this research will be to develop a conceptual model representing the patient experience of hypospadias and a novel PROM. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from Boston Children's Hospital's Institutional Review Board (HHS Registration: IRB00000352; Protocol number IRB-P00042425). CHOP, McMaster and CHEO have reliance agreements with Boston Children's Hospital. Findings from this research will be disseminated at national and international conferences and published in relevant peer-reviewed journals for the target audience.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.174 | 0.035 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".