Core outcome domain sets for clinical trials in epidermolysis bullosa — a COSEB protocol to achieve consensus on “what” to measure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) comprises a heterogeneous group of rare, genetic blistering diseases. The wide variety in EB trial outcomes limits the comparability of outcomes and, consequently, the implementation of the best available treatment options. A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured in all clinical trials, comprising what should be measured (i.e., outcome domains) and how it should be measured (i.e., outcome measurement instruments). This enables standardization of outcome measurement aiming at improving the comparability and quality of research. METHODS: The Core Outcome Set for Epidermolysis Bullosa (COSEB) initiative aims to develop COSs for use in clinical trials for the four major EB types: EB simplex, junctional EB, dystrophic EB, and Kindler EB. This protocol focuses on the development of core outcome domain sets - outlining what should be measured in EB clinical trials. Involved stakeholders are patients and patient representatives, clinicians, researchers, methodologists, industry representatives, regulators, health technology assessors, and payers. In the initial part, working groups are formed to define long lists of candidate outcome domains for the four major EB types. Potentially relevant outcome domains will be identified based on scoping literature reviews and qualitative studies. Following consultations with a stakeholder advisory panel, a short list of candidate outcome domains will be subject to voting in Delphi consensus procedures. Finally, the definitive core outcome domain sets for the four major EB types and, if indicated, any overarching core outcome domain sets, will be confirmed in consensus meetings. The project Has been prospectively registered in the COMET registry for COSs on 23 October 2017 (registration number 1033). DISCUSSION: This protocol provides guidance to ensure a systematic, transparent, and comprehensible approach of COSEB. The final core outcome domain sets are supposed to serve as the minimum sets of what to measure in future EB trials. This will provide the basis for the subsequent outcome measurement instrument selection. Particularly in this rare disease with inherently small-sized study cohorts, this will facilitate the incorporation of meaningful outcomes and pooling of data, ultimately enhancing optimal treatment for EB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study Has been prospectively registered in the COMET database on 23 October 2017 and updated on 24 January 2022 (registration number 1033 https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1033 ).
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | high |
| gpt | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.289 | 0.414 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".