Psychometric performance of the brazilian version of the Mini-cuestionario de calidad de vida en la hipertensión arterial (MINICHAL)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, ceiling and floor effects, reliability, and convergent construct validity of the Brazilian version of the Mini Cuestionario de Calidad de Vida en la Hipertensión Arterial (MINICHAL). The study included 200 hypertensive outpatients in a university hospital and a primary healthcare unit. The MINICHAL was applied in 3.0 (± 1.0) minutes with 100% of the items answered. A "ceiling effect" was observed in both dimensions and in the total score, as well as evidence of measurement stability (ICC=0.74). The convergent validity was confirmed by significant positive correlations between similar dimensions of the MINICHAL and the SF-36, and significant negative correlations with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire - MLHFQ, however, correlations between dissimilar constructs were also observed. It was concluded that the Brazilian version of the MINICHAL presents evidence of reliability and validity when applied to hypertensive outpatients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".