Derivation and Definitions of Clinical Study Variables for Multiple Long Term Conditions in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Protocol for a Modified Delphi Methods and Consensus Study on Behalf of the International Cardiovascular and Respiratory Alliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Standardized variables and their definitions are essential for robust delivery and reporting of clinical studies and quality improvement in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This protocol describes the rationale and methodology for the derivation and definition of clinical study variables for patients with multimorbidity or at high risk of multimorbidity in COPD. Methods and Analysis: We will follow a four-step process. This will include the formation of an Executive Committee, a Steering Committee and an International Consensus Group. We will conduct a systematic review of the literature from which potential clinical study variables will be extracted and their definitions proposed. Using a modified Delphi process, the Steering Committee will select candidate clinical study variables and as necessary refine their definitions. All three groups will then vote and give feedback on the candidate clinical study variables in a modified Delphi process (with rounds until consensus is achieved) to reach a final suite of internationally agreed hierarchically classified clinical study variables. Ethics and Dissemination: It is anticipated that the results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented in a variety of forums. Ethical approval was not required for this study.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".