Quality of life in systemic sclerosis: Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS II) in systemic sclerosis (SSc). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group registry participated in a standardized evaluation and completed the WHODAS II. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the WHODAS II with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36), construct validity was assessed by examining how it relates to common measures of outcome in SSc, and discriminative validity was assessed by examining how it distinguishes patients with more severe disease from those with less severe disease. RESULTS: A total of 402 patients with SSc were included (mean +/- SD age 55 +/- 13 years, 87% women, mean +/- SD disease duration 11 +/- 9 years). The mean +/- SD WHODAS II score was 24.6 +/- 17.4, and the greatest impairments were in life activities and mobility. There were moderate to good correlations between the WHODAS II and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary score (r = -0.44), the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score (r = -0.41), and measures of function (r = 0.54), depression (r = 0.44), pain (r = 0.40), and fatigue (r = -0.49, P < 0.0001 for all). The WHODAS II was able to consistently distinguish patients with milder disease from those with more severe disease. CONCLUSION: The WHODAS II had good psychometric properties in patients with SSc and should be considered a valid measure of health-related quality of life in SSc.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".