Evaluation des sites web médicaux. Fidélité interobservateur et intraobservateur d'un outil d'évaluation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the reliability of a tool for rating websites that provide information on evidence-based medicine. DESIGN: For each site, 60% of the score was given for content (eight criteria) and 40% was given for organization and presentation (nine criteria). Five of 10 randomly selected sites met the inclusion criteria and were used by three observers to test the accuracy of the tool. Each site was rated twice by each observer, with a 3-week interval between ratings. SETTING: Laval University, Quebec city. PARTICIPANTS: Three observers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to rate the reliability of the tool. RESULTS: Average overall scores for the five sites were 40%, 79%, 83%, 88%, and 89%. All three observers rated the same two sites in fourth and fifth place and gave the top three ratings to the other three sites. The overall rating of the five sites by the three observers yielded an ICC of 0.93 to 0.97. An ICC of 0.87 was obtained for the two overall ratings conducted 3 weeks apart. CONCLUSION: This new tool offers excellent intraobserver and interobserver measurement reliability and is an excellent means of distinguishing between medical websites of varying quality. For best results, we recommend that the tool be used simultaneously by two observers and that differences be resolved by consensus.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".