International validation of ReQuest in patients with endoscopy‐negative gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reflux Questionnaire (ReQuest), a newly developed gastro-oesophageal reflux disease-sensitive scale, can be used to reliably evaluate the effect of treatment on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease symptoms. AIM: International validation of this scale, in patients suffering from endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. METHODS: In this open, multicentre and multinational clinical trial 840 endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients received pantoprazole 20 mg daily for 28 days. The long and short versions of ReQuest were completed both in the pre-treatment and treatment phases. For scale development an item reduction analysis was performed. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability and responsiveness were calculated for psychometric analysis. Construct validity was evaluated by comparison with the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale and the Psychological General Well-being questionnaire by means of correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Factor analyses confirmed the content validity of both long and short version of ReQuest. Psychometric calculations proved high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.9), test-retest reliability [Intraclass Correlation Coefficient: 0.9 (long vs. long) and 0.8 (short vs. short)], and responsiveness (Responsiveness Index 320.3) of the scale, for which also good construct validity was achieved (correlation coefficient: Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale -0.6; Psychological General Well-being -0.4). CONCLUSION: ReQuest proved valid, reliable, and responsive in this multinational clinical trial to evaluate treatment response in endoscopy-negative gastro-oesophageal reflux disease patients.
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 | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".