Psychometric validation of the Psoriasis Symptom Diary using Phase III study data from patients with chronic plaque psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This analysis aimed to confirm the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Psoriasis Symptom Diary (PSD) using data from two Phase III studies in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Data from two randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicenter Phase III studies (n = 820) assessing the efficacy and safety of secukinumab were used. The PSD (24-h recall; 0-10 numeric rating scale) was electronically administered each evening. Test-retest reliability was determined using intraclass correlations. Construct validity hypotheses were evaluated via correlations with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EuroQoL 5-Dimension Health Status Questionnaire, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Discriminating ability and responsiveness were evaluated by estimating mean differences and effect sizes between known groups (using the PASI and IGA). Phase II-derived, anchor-based PGIC thresholds and cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots described meaningful change. RESULTS: Items on the PSD yielded high intraclass coefficients (>0.90). Correlations were in the anticipated direction and by week 12 were moderate to strong (0.41-0.73) in magnitude, demonstrating construct validity. Average PSD item scores differed predictably and significantly between known groups. Responsiveness effect size estimates were moderate to large (0.6-1.5), and CDF plots showed the percentage of responders to be consistently higher in treatment than in placebo arms across the range of change in PSD scores. CONCLUSIONS: The PSD is reliable, valid, and responsive, and represents a valid tool to enhance treatment decisions in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
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 | 0.026 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".