Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life in Canadians with Neurological Conditions: A Comparison of the SF6D and HUI3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to contribute evidence regarding the use of the SF6D and HUI3 in persons with neurological conditions. The data of 776 individuals from the LINC Study was analyzed. The mean utility score of the HUI3 was 0.47 (95% CI 0.45, 0.49) and SF6D was 0.62 (95% CI 0.62, 0.63). Even though the SF6D and HUI3 were sensitive to a variety of HRQoL domains relevant to persons with neurological conditions, they showed only marginal agreement (ICC of 0.41) with a mean utility difference of 0.15 (95% CI 0.13, 0.17). Discordance varied systematically with HRQoL status and was consistent regardless of the participant or impairment characteristics present. Despite sharing a common purpose, the substantial and clinically important differences found between the SF6D and HUI3 cast doubt on whether the utility estimates produced by these instruments are directly comparable or universally valid.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".