MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415815830 · doi:10.3390/children12111477

Patient-Oriented Priorities for Pediatric Erythromelalgia: A Priority-Setting Process

2025· article· en· W4415815830 on OpenAlexaffabout
Don Daniel Ocay, Meghan Halpin, Karen Keighley, Neva Keighley, Sarah Sheridan, Kirsten R. Tice, Deirdre De Ranieri, See Wan Tham, Catherine A. Brownstein, Jacqui Clinch, Dawn Marie R. Davis, Carolina Donado, Genevieve D’Souza, Deepa Kattail, Kimberly Lobo, Danielle Ravetti, Paola Sandroni, Jennifer Stinson, Gary A. Walco, Suellen M. Walker, Timothy W. Yu, Charles B. Berde

Bibliographic record

VenueChildren · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersBoston Children's Hospital
KeywordsInterimPhase (matter)ErythromelalgiaAllianceProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Erythromelalgia is a rare condition characterized by burning pain, redness, and warmth primarily in the extremities, usually worsened by heat and alleviated by cold. The objective of this study was to identify the top 10 priorities in pediatric erythromelalgia from multiple perspectives, including clinicians, people with lived experience of childhood-onset erythromelalgia, and their family members. Methods: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority-Setting Process was conducted. The top priorities were identified through four phases: (1) an international online survey to gather priorities, (2) data processing, (3) an interim prioritization online survey, and (4) a virtual workshop to set the final priorities. Results: In phase 1, 185 potential priorities were submitted by 74 respondents (53% patients, 24% family members, and 23% clinicians) that were developed into 68 unique research questions (phase 2). In phase 3, of the 68 questions, 50 were rated for importance by 58 participants (38% patients, 36% family members, and 26% clinicians), reducing the list to 25 questions. In phase 4, the top 10 was reached through consensus by 12 participants (33% patients, 25% family members, and 42% clinicians) across Canada, South Africa, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. Conclusions: The final priorities focused on the treatment of erythromelalgia, understanding underlying mechanisms, the association of erythromelalgia with various body systems, and generating awareness. This list is the first international patient-centered research agenda for childhood-onset erythromelalgia and a call to action from key partners to improve future research and care.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChildrenSame topicPain Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207