Validation of the composite autonomic symptom scale 31 (<scp>COMPASS</scp>‐31) in patients with and without small fiber polyneuropathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The recently developed composite autonomic symptom score 31 (COMPASS-31) is a questionnaire that assess symptoms of dysautonomia. It was distilled from the well-established Autonomic Symptom Profile questionnaire. COMPASS-31 has not yet been externally validated. To do so, its psychometric properties and convergent validity in patients with and without objective diagnosis of small fiber polyneuropathy (SFPN) were assessed. METHODS: Internal validity and reliability of COMPASS-31 were assessed in participants with or without SFPN spanning the full range of severity of autonomic symptoms. Convergent validity was assessed by comparing results of the COMPASS-31 with the "gold standard" autonomic function testing that measures cardiovagal, adrenergic and sudomotor functions. Additionally, relationships between COMPASS-31 and the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, Short Form Health Survey and 0-10 numeric pain scale were measured. COMPASS-31 and all other questionnaire results were compared between patients with or without evidence of SFPN, objectively confirmed by distal-leg PGP9.5-immunolabeled skin biopsy. RESULTS: Amongst 66 participants (28 SFPN+, 38 SFPN-), COMPASS-31 total scores had excellent internal validity (Cronbach's α = 0.919), test-retest reliability (r(s) = 0.886; P < 0.001) and good convergent validity (r(s) = 0.474; P < 0.001). COMPASS-31 scores differed between subjects with or without SFPN (Z = -3.296, P < 0.001) and demonstrated fair diagnostic accuracy. Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve was 0.749 (P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval 0.627-0.871). CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS-31 has good psychometric properties in the population of patients being evaluated for SFPN and thus it might be useful as an initial screening tool for the more expensive SFPN objective tests.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".