Development of a UK core dataset for geriatric medicine research: a position statement and results from a Delphi consensus process
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is lack of standardisation in assessment tools used in geriatric medicine research, which makes pooling of data and cross-study comparisons difficult. Methods We conducted a modified Delphi process to establish measures to be included within core and extended datasets for geriatric medicine research in the United Kingdom (UK). This included three complete questionnaire rounds, and one consensus meeting. Participants were selected from attendance at the NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre meeting, May 2019, and academic geriatric medicine e-mailing lists. Literature review was used to develop the initial questionnaire, with all responses then included in the second questionnaire. The third questionnaire used refined options from the second questionnaire with response ranking. Results Ninety-eight responses were obtained across all questionnaire rounds (Initial: 19, Second: 21, Third: 58) from experienced and early career researchers in geriatric medicine. The initial questionnaire included 18 questions with short text responses, including one question for responders to suggest additional items. Twenty-six questions were included in the second questionnaire, with 108 within category options. The third questionnaire included three ranking, seven final agreement, and four binary option questions. Results were discussed at the consensus meeting. In our position statement, the final consensus dataset includes six core domains: demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status), specified morbidities, functional ability (Barthel and/or Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living), Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), cognition, and patient-reported outcome measures (dependent on research question). We also propose how additional variables should be measured within an extended dataset. Conclusions Our core and extended datasets represent current consensus opinion of academic geriatric medicine clinicians across the UK. We consider the development and further use of these datasets will strengthen collaboration between researchers and academic institutions.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 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 it