Characterizing Patient-Reported Fatigue Using Electronic Diaries in Neurodegenerative and Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: Observational Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Fatigue is a prevalent and debilitating symptom in many chronic conditions, including immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs). Fatigue often fluctuates significantly within and between days, yet traditional patient-reported outcomes (PROs) typically rely on recall periods of a week or more, potentially missing these short-term variations. The development of digital tools, such as electronic diaries (eDiaries), offers a unique opportunity to collect granular, real-time data. However, the feasibility, adherence, and comparability of eDiary-based assessments to established PROs require further investigation. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of using a high-frequency eDiary to capture intraday variability in fatigue and to compare eDiary data with scores obtained from the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), a validated weekly recall PRO. Methods: Data were collected from 159 participants enrolled in the IDEA-FAST (Identifying Digital Endpoints to Assess Fatigue, Sleep and Activities in Daily Living in Neurodegenerative Disorders and Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases) feasibility study; a 4-week prospective observational study conducted at 4 European centers. Participants included individuals with NDDs (n=39), IMIDs (n=78), and healthy volunteers (n=42). Participants used an eDiary to report their physical and mental fatigue levels up to 4 times daily on a 7-point Likert scale (0=low and 6=high). Adherence was calculated as the proportion of completed eDiary entries relative to the total expected entries. Correlations between averaged eDiary scores and weekly FACIT-F scores were analyzed. Results: Adherence to the eDiary protocol was 5505/8880 (61.99%) overall, varying by cohort, with the highest adherence (1117/1200, 93.07%) observed in the primary Sjögren syndrome cohort and the lowest adherence in the Parkinson disease (410/960, 42.7%) and Huntington disease (320/720, 44.4%) cohorts. The average adherence was 430/1680 (43.45%) in the NDD cohorts and 3367/4560 (73.84%) in the IMID cohorts. Fatigue levels showed clear diurnal variation, with significantly higher fatigue reported in the evening compared to the morning (P<.001). A moderate correlation (Spearman=0.46, P<.001) was observed between eDiary fatigue scores and FACIT-F scores, with stronger cohort-specific associations for certain FACIT-F items. These results indicate that eDiaries provide complementary insights to weekly PROs by capturing intraday fluctuations in fatigue. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility, acceptability, and validity of using high-frequency eDiaries to assess fatigue in chronic conditions. By effectively detecting intra- and interday fatigue variations, eDiaries complement traditional PROs such as FACIT-F, offering a more nuanced understanding of fatigue patterns. Future research should explore optimized eDiary protocols to balance participant burden with data granularity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».