Alternative scoring of the cutaneous assessment tool in juvenile dermatomyositis: Results using abbreviated formats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Cutaneous Assessment Tool (CAT) is a comprehensive, semiquantitative tool for the assessment of skin disease in juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). The goal of this study was to determine whether alternative scoring methods would shorten the CAT without compromising its measurement characteristics. METHODS: A total of 113 children with juvenile DM were assessed at baseline; 94 were assessed again 7-9 months later. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness were obtained using the original scoring method and 2 alternative methods: the maximum and binary scoring methods. RESULTS: Spearman's correlations of the maximum and binary methods with the original were both 0.98 (P < 0.0001) for the CAT activity score, and 0.96 and 0.98, respectively (P < 0.0001), for the CAT damage score. Values obtained for interrater reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness were similar for all 3 scoring methods. Although there was a trend toward the maximum method having higher interrater reliability and the binary method having higher responsiveness, the confidence intervals were overlapping and no statistically significant differences were observed. Correlation coefficients for the 3 scoring methods with other measures of myositis disease activity and damage were very similar. CONCLUSION: The maximum and binary methods of scoring the CAT have measurement characteristics similar to the original method. Adoption of one of these abbreviated scoring methods should increase its acceptability to clinicians and researchers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".