The utility of the Dutch Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 for assessing health status in individuals with haemophilia: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this pilot study was to examine the usefulness of the Dutch version of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (D-AIMS2)in assessing the health status of Dutch individuals with haemophilia. Sixty-eight individuals with mild, moderate, and severe haemophilia attending our clinic for their annual check-up participated. They first completed the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The D-AIMS2 was filled in afterwards at home. With the COPM, individuals rated their specific problematic activities of daily life (ADL), as well as the severity and importance of each problem. The D-AIMS2 is a comprehensive, self-administered questionnaire that evaluates functional health status. Fifty-seven individuals completed and returned the D-AIMS2. Reliability analysis demonstrated good internal consistency for the scales (Cronbach's alpha=0.76-1.00), as well as for the components (alpha=0.80-0.88), except for the component 'social interaction' (alpha=0.44). Criterion validity of the D-AIMS2 was assessed by comparison with COPM outcomes; 80% of the problematic ADLs were included in the questionnaire, 20% were missing. Correlations between the D-AIMS2 components 'physical health' and 'symptoms' with predicted scores of those individuals by a highly experienced physiotherapist (r=0.63 and 0.53, respectively) substantiated its concurrent validity. Based on these results we concluded that the D-AIMS2, with minor adjustments, can be an appropriate tool for assessing the health status of Dutch haemophilia patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".