The minimally important difference (MID) for patient-reported outcomes including pain, fatigue, sleep and the health assessment questionnaire disability index (HAQ-DI) in primary Sjögren's syndrome.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We wanted to determine the MID for the HAQ, pain, fatigue, sleep and global VAS (0-100mm) in Sjögren's syndrome (SS) using a patient-reported overall health status anchor. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS) who had answered a standardised questionnaire at two consecutive visits including an overall health status question: 'How would you describe your overall status since your last visit: much better, better, the same, worse, much worse?' were included. The MID was calculated as the mean change between visits for those who rated their disease as better or worse. Scales on VAS were from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). RESULTS: Forty patients met the inclusion criteria (97% female, mean age 58 years, mean disease duration 10 years). The mean baseline HAQ was 0.68. Ten rated their status as better and 14 as worse than the previous visit. MID estimates for improvemenT/worsening (SD) respectively were: -7.4 (27.8) / 20.7 (20.0) for pain VAS, -6.2 (28.3) / 15.2 (21.8) for fatigue VAS, -24.0 (24.0) / 15.2 (28.0) for sleep VAS, -0.18 (0.23) / 0.14 (0.30) for HAQ and -23.1 (21.6) / 16.4 (20.9) for global VAS. Spearman's rho correlation coefficients for the patient-reported outcomes were 0.38 (pain VAS), 0.54 (fatigue VAS), 0.55 (sleep VAS), 0.39 (HAQ), and 0.57 (global VAS), p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: The MID for pain and fatigue are greater for worsening than improvement. A small change in the HAQ is detected as a change in status by the patient. This knowledge may aid those who treat SS and in designing intervention studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".