Minimally Important Difference for Patient-reported Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis: Health Assessment Questionnaire and Pain, Fatigue, and Global Visual Analog Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the minimally important difference (MID) for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain, fatigue, sleep, and global visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 mm) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) using a patient-reported overall health status anchor. Patient-reported outcomes are often used to gauge the effect of PsA in clinical trials. There is currently no knowledge about the MID for patient-reported outcomes in PsA. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of PsA who had answered questions about outcomes at 2 consecutive visits and 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. MID was calculated as the mean change between visits for those who rated their disease as "better" or "worse." RESULTS: Two hundred patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 17.5% rated their status as "better" and 25.0% rated their status as "worse" than the previous visit. MID estimates for improvement/worsening (SD) respectively were -0.131 (0.411)/0.131 (0.309) for HAQ-DI, -9.37 (24.37)/13.96 (22.05) for pain VAS, -8.15 (23.52)/3.63 (27.62) for fatigue VAS, -10.97 (29.74)/13.81 (27.32) for sleep VAS, and -8.41 (21.17)/11.53 (21.03) for global VAS. Spearman's r correlation coefficients between the anchor and mean change were 0.374 (HAQ-DI), 0.448 (pain VAS), 0.239 (fatigue VAS), 0.326 (sleep VAS), 0.490 (global VAS); p < 0.01. CONCLUSION: This is the first study investigating MID of patient-reported outcomes in PsA. MID for HAQ-DI, pain, and global VAS were shown to be the best predictors for a patient's perception of overall changes in disease status.
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 | 0.032 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".