The Minimally Important Difference for Patient-reported Outcomes in Spondyloarthropathies including Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, and Health Assessment Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study minimal important differences (MID) in spondyloarthropathies (SpA). MID are important in determining clinically relevant changes and for interpretation of trials and treating patients. MID have been widely studied in rheumatoid arthritis, but less so in SpA. METHODS: Patients with SpA had to be seen for 2 consecutive visits and have completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and 100 mm visual analog scale on both visits for fatigue, pain, sleep, and global assessment. At the second visit they had to answer a question regarding any change in their overall health (from last visit), responding with much better, better, same, worse, or much worse. The MID were the mean changes for those who were either better or worse. RESULTS: Our study involved 140 eligible patients with a SpA: 69% were men, the mean age was 45 years, and the mean disease duration was 14.5 years. Almost half the patients rated themselves as unchanged from the previous visit but the remainder were either better or worse, with a minority rating themselves as much better or much worse. The MID for better and worse outcomes were HAQ (-0.136; 0.220), pain (-6.93; 18.97), fatigue (-1.43; 14.42), and sleep (-2.23; 10.76). No gender differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the MID vary depending on better versus worse (bidirectionally different). MID may be smaller in clinical practice than what is observed in trials.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".