The Quality of My Life questionnaire: the minimal clinically important difference for pediatric rheumatology patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine parent-child agreement for the Quality of My Life (QoML) questionnaire. To establish construct validity of the QoML questionnaire. To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Quality of Life (QOL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) scales. METHODS: A total of 136 families of children with inflammatory arthritis were interviewed. The QoML questionnaire was completed for the child's current state of health, and under 2 hypothetical scenarios, where (1) there is a hypothetical small improvement, and (2) there is a hypothetical small deterioration in health. The differences between the original QOL and HRQOL scores and hypothetical improvement and deterioration scores, respectively, were calculated to give MCID scores. RESULTS: In total, 131 families completed the questionnaires. Intraclass correlation coefficients for parent proxy report and patient self-report of the QOL and HRQOL were 0.63 and 0.40, respectively. Correlations of QOL with pain and disease severity were moderately negative (r = -0.55 and -0.56, respectively, p < 0.0001). Correlations of HRQOL with pain and disease severity were strongly negative (r = -0.66 and r = -0.68, respectively, p < 0.0001). The MCID for improvement on the QOL was 7 mm, and for the HRQOL 11 mm. The MCID for deterioration in QOL was -33 mm, and for HRQOL -38 mm. CONCLUSION: The QoML questionnaire demonstrated fair parent-child agreement and good convergent construct validity. MCID scores will enable clinicians to interpret QoML questionnaire results in a clinically meaningful way.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| 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 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".