Clinimetric Properties of Outcome Measures in Bronchiectasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale There is a lack of outcome measures with robust clinimetric properties in bronchiectasis. Objectives To determine the clinimetric properties (reliability over 1 year during clinical stability and responsiveness over the course of antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbation) of objective and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods This multicenter cohort study included adults with bronchiectasis from seven hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants attended four visits, 4 months apart over 1 year while clinically stable and at the beginning and end of exacerbation and completed lung function (spirometry and multiple breath washout), provided a blood sample for C-reactive protein (CRP) measurement, and completed health-related quality of life (HRQoL) questionnaires (Quality of Life-Bronchiectasis, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire, and EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Levels). Results Participants (n = 132) had a mean (standard deviation) age of 66 (11) years, and 64% were female. Lung function parameters (forced expiratory volume in one second [FEV1], standard lung clearance index [LCI2.5]) were reliable over time [coefficient of variation (CV): <10%]). Regarding responsiveness, FEV1 demonstrated better properties than LCI2.5; therefore, a clear justification for the use of LCI2.5 in future trials is needed. CRP was less reliable (CV > 20%) over time than FEV1 and LCI2.5, and whereas CRP had a large mean change between the start and end of an exacerbation, this may have been driven by a small number of patients having a large change in CRP. Reliability of HRQoL questionnaires and questionnaire domains ranged from acceptable (CV: 20–30%) to good (CV: 10–20%), and HRQoL were responsive to treatment of exacerbations. Considering the specific questionnaire domain relevant to the intervention and its associated clinimetric properties is important. Additional statistics will support future power and/or sample size analysis. Conclusions This information on the clinimetric properties of lung function parameters, CRP, and HRQoL parameters should be used to inform the choice of outcome measures used in future bronchiectasis trials.
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 | 0.147 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".