Agreement Between Patient and Proxy Responses of Health‐Related Quality of Life After Hip Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine agreement between patient and proxy respondents on health-related quality of life (HRQL) over time during the 6-month recovery after hip fracture. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING: A healthcare region serving Edmonton, Alberta, and the surrounding area. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred forty-five patients aged 65 and older, were treated for hip fracture, and had Mini-Mental State Examination scores greater than 17; 245 family caregivers participated as proxy respondents. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcome was HRQL (Health Utilities Mark 2 and Mark 3). Interviews were completed within 5 days after surgery and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Agreement was considered moderate to excellent for HRQL. ICC values ranged from 0.50 to 0.85 (P<.001) for physically based observable dimensions of health status and from 0.32 to 0.66 (P<.01) for less-observable dimensions. Agreement improved with time. Time and the number of days between patient and proxy interviews were significant factors in accounting for patient-proxy differences. CONCLUSION: Although proxy and patient responses are not interchangeable, proxy responses provide an option for assessing function and health status in patients who are unable to respond on their own behalf.
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 | 0.025 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".