Construct Validity of the Modified Numeric Rating Scale of Patient Global Assessment in Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The construct validity of the patient global health assessment (PGA) in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has not been analyzed, despite its common use. We evaluated the construct validity of a numeric rating scale (NRS) of the PGA in PsA. METHODS: Patients with PsA who fulfilled the ClASsification for Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria were recruited at a tertiary referral center. Demographic data were collected and PGA data were determined from administration of an 11-point NRS (0 to 10 points representing best to worst status). Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by correlation between PGA and clinical variables. Patients were grouped as having severe disease based on Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28) > 5.1, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) > 1.0, walking with aids, and social welfare-dependent. Patients were grouped as being in remission by DAS28 < 2.6 and the Minimal Disease Activity Criteria. Known-group validity of PGA was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients (52% men) were studied. Convergent validity revealed strong correlations of PGA with pain score, HAQ, and DAS28; and weak correlations with skin severity score, physician's global assessment and morning stiffness. In multivariate analysis, PGA was associated with pain, physical function, mental function, and skin severity score. PGA distinguished different levels of severity well, as determined by comparison with different known groups with large effect sizes. CONCLUSION: Judged on an NRS, the PGA had good construct validity and satisfactorily distinguished all levels of severity in PsA.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".