Validation and clinical interpretation of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire among COPD patients, China.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SETTING: Although the St George's Respiratory Questionnaires in Mandarin-Chinese (SGRQ-MC) have been used in China, few data are available on the translation and adaptation process, psychometric properties and clinical meaning. It is therefore difficult to adequately evaluate the equivalence of this instrument in Chinese populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of a culturally translated SGRQ-MC, and to estimate clinically important differences (CID) for the SGRQ in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients in China. DESIGN: SGRQ was translated into Mandarin using standardised forward and backward translation procedures. Health status and clinical data were collected at baseline in 491 patients with stable COPD and again after 1 week in 131 randomly selected patients. All patients were followed up monthly and assessed during exacerbations and at 1 year. RESULTS: The SGRQ-MC showed good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity and known-group validity. Responsiveness was shown by significant changes in SGRQ-MC scores between stable stage and exacerbation (P<0.0001). The estimated CID for the total score ranged from 3.1 (95%CI -0.3-6.5) to 7.7 (95%CI -1.7-17.2). CONCLUSION: This SGRQ-MC is a reliable, valid and responsive instrument for quality of life evaluation in COPD patients in China. As it is culturally and clinically equivalent to other versions, measures can be compared among countries.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".