Development and Validation of a Utility Weighting Function for the Patient-Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previously, we developed a prostate cancer (PC)-specific health state classification system, the Patient Oriented Prostate Utility Scale (PORPUS). In this study, we developed a scoring system to allow indirect calculation of utilities from the PORPUS. METHODS: We interviewed 234 PC outpatients, including those with newly diagnosed and metastatic disease, to obtain rating scale (RS) values on 4 to 6 levels of each of the 10 attributes of the PORPUS, and on 10 corner states (worst level on 1 attribute, best on 9). Patients also completed standard gamble (SG) and RS tasks on 4 multiattribute states (impotence and pain corner states, mild and severe PC symptoms). We used the RS and SG scores for multiattribute states to determine a risk aversion function for mapping values to utilities. We then tested 15 different strategies to estimate the multiattribute utility function (MAUF), using the single attribute disutilities for each level of the 10 PORPUS attributes, and the disutilities for the corner states. The root mean squared error (RMSE) of prediction of the SG on the 4 multiattribute states was used to identify the optimal strategy and scoring system. RESULTS: The optimal strategy gave an RMSE of 0.06. Comparison of mean MAUF-predicted utilities to directly elicited SG utilities for the 2 multiattribute states from patients in 2 previously published studies (n = 248 and n = 141) supported the validity of the MAUF. CONCLUSIONS: The scoring system together with the PORPUS comprise an indirect utility instrument, the PORPUS-U, which can be used in clinical and research settings.
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 | 0.023 | 0.072 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".