Adaptation of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) into French‐Canadian and English‐Canadian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) is the first disease-specific instrument for assessing patient-reported symptoms, functioning and quality of life (QoL) in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). OBJECTIVES: To create and validate French-Canadian (FC) and English-Canadian (EC) language versions of the CAMPHOR. METHODS: A translation panel (for the FC version) and lay panels (for both versions) were convened to adapt the questionnaires (dual-panel methodology). Subsequently, these new questionnaires were field-tested in 15 FC PAH and 15 EC PAH patients. Finally, in a postal validation study, the new language versions of the CAMPHOR underwent psychometric evaluation in 41 FC and 52 EC PAH patients to test for reliability and validity. RESULTS: The FC and EC field-test interview participants found the questionnaires relevant, comprehensible and easy to complete. Psychometric analyses showed that the FC and EC adaptations were successful. High test-retest coefficients for the scales after controlling for change in respondent's QoL (FC: 0.92 to 0.96; EC: 0.85 to 0.99) indicated a high degree of reliability. The FC and EC CAMPHOR scales had good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficients 0.90 to 0.92 and 0.88 to 0.92, respectively). Predicted correlations with the Nottingham Health Profile provided evidence of the construct validity of the FC and EC scales. The FC and EC adaptations also showed known groups validity. CONCLUSIONS: The FC and EC adaptations of the CAMPHOR have been shown to be reliable and valid for measures of health-related QoL and QoL in PAH, and thus can be recommended for use in clinical studies and routine practice in PAH.
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 | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".