An Evaluation of Information on the Internet About a New Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Study Design. Cross-sectional survey. Objective. The objective of this study was to investigate the authorship, content, and quality of information available to the public on the Internet pertaining to the cervical artificial disc replacement device. Summary of Background Data. The Internet is widely used by patients as an educational tool for health care information. In addition, the Internet is used as a medium for direct-to-consumer marketing. Increasing interest in cervical artificial disc replacement has led to the emergence of numerous Web sites offering information about this procedure. It is thought that patients can be influenced by information found on the Internet. Methods. A cross section of Web sites accessible to the general public was surveyed. Three commonly used search engines were used to locate 150 (50/search engine) Web sites providing information about the cervical artificial disc replacement. Each Web site was evaluated with regard to authorship and content. Results. Fifty-three percent of the Web sites reviewed were authorized by a private physician group, 4% by an academic physician group, 13% by industry, 16% were news reports, and 14% were not otherwise categorized. Sixty-five percent of Web sites offered a mechanism for direct contact and 19% provided clear patient eligibility criteria. Benefits were expressed in 80% of Web sites, whereas associated risks were described in 35% or less. European experiences were noted in 17% of Web sites, whereas only 9% of Web sites detailed the current US experience. Conclusion. The results of this study demonstrate that much of the content of the Internet-derived information pertaining to the cervical artificial disc replacement is for marketing purposes and may not represent unbiased information. Until we can confirm the content on a Web site to be accurate, patients should be cautioned when using the Internet as a source for health care information related to cervical disc replacement. The objective of this study was to investigate the authorship, content, and quality of information available to the public on the Internet pertaining to the cervical artificial disc replacement device. The results of this study demonstrate that much of the content of the Internet-derived information pertaining to the cervical artificial disc replacement is for marketing purposes and may not represent unbiased information. Patients should be cautioned when using the Internet as a source for health care information related to cervical disc replacement.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".