Construct validity of a multidimensional electronic pain diary for adolescents with arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and feasibility of a multidimensional electronic pain diary (e-Ouch(c)) in adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Two descriptive studies with repeated measures were conducted between January and December 2005. Participants were drawn from a large metropolitan rheumatology clinic in a university affiliated pediatric tertiary care centre. In Study 1, 76 adolescents with active arthritis recorded their pain three times a day for 2weeks using the e-Ouch(c). In Study 2, 36 adolescents recorded their pain three times a day for 1week before and 2weeks after joint injections. Adolescents in both studies completed multiple measures to determine the construct validity and feasibility of the e-Ouch(c). Adolescents reported mild levels of pain intensity, unpleasantness, and interference as well as stiffness, and mild to moderate levels of fatigue. e-Ouch(c) average weekly pain unpleasantness and interference scores were higher in adolescents with higher pain intensity scores. Correlations between average weekly pain ratings on the e-Ouch(c) and scores from: (a) recalled least, average and worst weekly pain, (b) health-related quality of life and pain coping, and (c) disease activity were as predicted. Pain ratings were significantly lower following joint injections with effect sizes in the low to moderate and moderate to high ranges at the first and second week post-injection, respectively. These findings provide evidence of the construct validity and feasibility of the e-Ouch(c) electronic diary in adolescents with JIA. Use of real-time data capture approaches should be considered in future studies of chronic arthritis.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".