Diagnostic Value of the Reflux Disease Questionnaire in General Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study determined the diagnostic and therapeutic response of the Reflux Disease Questionnaire (RDQ) using the symptom association probability (SAP) as reference. In addition, the RDQ's construct validity and its relationship to quality of life (QOL) were ascertained. METHODS: Seventy-four patients with GORD symptoms (age 51 years (22-78); male 62%) derived from primary care completed the RDQ, GSRS and QOLRAD before and after a 2 weeks' course of esomeprazole 40 mg daily. The SAP was determined by a 24-hour pH recording before PPI treatment. The diagnostic abilities of the RDQ (total and 4 dimensions scores) were assessed with the area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating curve. RDQ scores before and after PPI treatment were compared with Wilcoxon tests. Multiple linear regressions assessed the RDQ's construct validity (GSRS) and relationship to QOL (QOLRAD). RESULTS: The AUCs were low for all RDQ dimensions (AUC <0.6). In the SAP-positive patients all RDQ dimensions improved (p < 0.0001) while the scores of the SAP negatives did not (heartburn p < 0.01; GORD and total score p < 0.05; regurgitation and dyspepsia n.s.). The RDQ was related to the total and reflux GSRS dimensions while the food and drink QOL dimension was linearly associated with the RDQ. CONCLUSIONS: The RDQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire with excellent construct validity and a good relationship to QOL. The diagnostic value of the RDQ in primary care is limited, but combination with an additional PPI treatment course might improve the RDQ's ability to discriminate GORD patients according to their SAP outcome.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it