MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414343139 · doi:10.1177/08968608251376478

Validating the standardised outcomes in nephrology-life participation (SONG-LP) measure in people receiving peritoneal dialysis: Rationale and process

2025· article· en· W4414343139 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron Thomas Burnett, Anastasia Hughes, Angela Ju, Martin Howell, Karine Manera, Melissa S Cheetham, David W. Johnson, Martin Wilkie, Fiona Loud, Ana Elizabeth Figueiredo, Catherine Cheung, Daniel Schwartz, Helen Hurst, Janine Farragher, Jenny I. Shen, Rachael L. Morton, Rachael Walker, Rajnish Mehrotra, Thyago Proença de Moraes, Sarbjit V. Jassal, Yeoungjee Cho

Bibliographic record

VenuePeritoneal Dialysis International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEPsychological interventionDialysisInternal consistencyProcess (computing)Clinical trialPatient participation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life participation has been identified as a critically important core outcome to be reported in all trials in people receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Life participation is defined as the ability to participate in meaningful activities such as work (e.g. employment, housework, study), family, social (e.g. time with friends) and leisure (travel, hobbies, exercise) activities. However, life participation is rarely and inconsistently reported in trials in PD. The standardised outcomes in nephrology-life participation (SONG-LP) instrument was validated in adult kidney transplant recipients and demonstrated internal consistency and test-retest reliability. In this article, we outline the rationale and process for validating the SONG-LP instrument in people receiving PD.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 venuePeritoneal Dialysis InternationalSame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207