Evaluation of 21-Numbered Circle and 10-Centimeter Horizontal Line Visual Analog Scales for Physician and Parent Subjective Ratings in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the measurement properties of 21-numbered circle visual analog scales (VAS) and traditional 10-cm horizontal line VAS for physician and parent subjective ratings in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). METHODS: We studied 2 patient samples in whom physician global rating of overall disease activity, parent global rating of the child's overall well-being, and parent rating of intensity of child's pain were performed using traditional 10-cm horizontal line VAS (n = 397) or 21-numbered circle VAS (n = 471). The measurement performances of the 2 VAS formats were examined by assessing construct validity, score distribution, responsiveness to change over time, and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: Most Spearman correlations with other JIA outcome measures yielded by 21-numbered circle VAS were greater than those obtained with 10-cm horizontal line VAS, revealing that the circle VAS format has better construct validity. Ceiling effects (i.e., score = 0) for physician and parent global ratings were 43.7% and 32.9%, respectively, on 21-numbered circle VAS, and 31.6% and 35.3%, respectively, on 10-cm horizontal line VAS. Responsiveness of 21-numbered circle VAS was good (standardized response mean > 0.8) or moderate (standardized response mean > 0.6) among patients classified as improved or worsened, respectively, by the physician or the parent. Overall, MCID values for 21-numbered circle VAS tended to be greater for worsening than for improvement. CONCLUSION: The 21-numbered circle VAS are a suitable alternative to the 10-cm horizontal line VAS and may facilitate incorporation of physician and parent subjective ratings in standard clinical practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".