Comparison of the Dermatology Life Quality Index and the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index in assessment of quality of life in patients with psoriasis aged 16–17 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) are widely used to assess quality of life (QoL) in adults (≥ 16 years) and children (4-16 years) with psoriasis. In the age group 16-17 years, it is not known whether DLQI and CDLQI reflect QoL impairment in the same way. OBJECTIVES: To compare DLQI and CDLQI scores in patients with psoriasis aged 16-17 years. METHODS: Patients with psoriasis aged 16-17 years were asked to complete both the DLQI and CDLQI. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included. There was a high correlation between DLQI and CDLQI scores (r = 0·90, P < 0·001). The mean DLQI score (5·41 ± 5·20) was lower than the mean CDLQI (6·61 ± 5·74) (P < 0·001). The major part of this difference (∆0·61) was caused by the low score regarding sexual difficulties in the DLQI (0·11 ± 0·49) and the high score concerning sleep in the CDLQI (0·71 ± 0·93). In addition, the question related to sports scored 0·34 in the DLQI but 0·86 in the CDLQI (∆0·52). The question related to work/study in the DLQI scored lower than the question on school/holiday in the CDLQI (∆0·41). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with psoriasis aged 16-17 years, DLQI and CDLQI scores closely correlate, but the mean DLQI score was lower than the mean CDLQI score. This was caused primarily by differences in the answers to questions regarding sexual difficulties and sleep. As the QoL impacts experienced by people aged 16-17 may differ from those experienced by children or adults, QoL measures designed for use in this age range may have advantages over both child- and adult-specific measures.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".