The Cardiff Acne Disability Index: Cultural and Linguistic Validation in French
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI) evaluates the impact of acne on the patient's life. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to translate the CADI into French and to validate the French version. METHOD: The CADI was translated into French following international methodological recommendations (translation, quality control, back-translation and pilot test). RESULTS: Compatibility difficulties between the cultural background of UK and France were identified and resolved by the translation process, which should guarantee that specific words and phrases reflect the cultures in the respective countries. A pilot test in volunteers demonstrated the clarity and understandability of the questions across social classes and ages. A preliminary test-retest comparison of the final scale showed sufficient reliability, with a correlation coefficient of 0.90 for the total CADI score of the French version. Moreover, the good internal consistency of the scale was demonstrated with a Cronbach alpha of 0.87. CONCLUSION: The CADI, a valuable tool for assessing the impact of acne on a patient's life, can now be used in French.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".