Readability and Quality Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials for Spinal and Epidural Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth. 2024;71(8):1092–1102. doi: 10.1007/s12630-024-02771-9) A study assessed the readability and quality of online patient education materials about spinal and epidural anesthesia, focusing on whether they align with recommended guidelines for accessibility. The American Medical Association suggests health-related materials should be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level to ensure comprehension by a broad audience. The researchers utilized Google Search to evaluate 261 webpages found through 11 relevant search terms. Seven readability formulas were used, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), New Dale–Chall (NDC), and Automated Readability Index (ARI).
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 | 0.011 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".