The clinical meaning of functional outcome scores in children with juvenile arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) is the most widely used measure of function in childhood arthritis and yields a score of 0 (no disability) to 3 (very severe disability). This study ascertained the cutoff levels for CHAQ scores that represent no, mild, moderate, and severe disability, to determine the minimal clinically important change in scores and to determine whether the minimal important change in scores is similar for parent-reported assessments and the self-assessments provided by their older children. METHODS: One hundred thirty-six parents of children with arthritis were interviewed. They were asked to complete the CHAQ by assessing their child's functional status under 3 categories: current health, a hypothetical small improvement, and a hypothetical small worsening. They also completed a categorical scale of subjective disability. Those children who were > or = 10 years old also completed the CHAQ interview separately. RESULTS: The pediatric patients had mostly no, mild, or moderate disability. For those children rated as having no disability, the median CHAQ score was 0. The median CHAQ scores corresponding to mild, mild-to-moderate, and moderate disability were 0.13, 0.63, and 1.75, respectively. The minimal clinically important improvement was a reduction in score of 0.13. The minimal clinically important deterioration was a median change in score of 0.75. This discrepancy may be due to the ceiling effect seen with the CHAQ. There were no significant differences when the children assessed themselves. CONCLUSION: Clinicians, as well as researchers setting protocols, should aim for a mimimum improvement of 0.13 in the CHAQ score when treating pediatric patients with arthritis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".