MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability and validity of an observer-rated disfigurement scale for head and neck cancer patients

2000· article· en· W2090850435 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHead & Neck · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisfigurementDiscriminant validityMedicinePredictive validityPsychosocialValidityIntraclass correlationClinical psychologyHead and neck cancerPsychometricsSurgeryCancerPsychiatryInternal medicineInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Facial disfigurement is considered to be one of the most distressing aspects of head and neck cancer and its treatment, but it has been the focus of little systematic study. Existing studies have yielded conflicting results about the psychosocial impact of disfigurement. No studies to date have examined disfigurement using a valid and reliable observer-rated measure. The purpose of the current study was to examine the validity (convergent and discriminant) and the inter-rater reliability of a novel nine-point observer-rated disfigurement scale. METHODS: The sample consisted of 74 ambulatory head and neck cancer patients more than 6 months post treatment. Ratings of disfigurement were assigned independently by surgical and nonsurgical raters. Validity was assessed by comparing the association between disfigurement ratings and sociodemographic and illness treatment variables. Reliability was assessed by examining the concordance between the surgical and nonsurgical ratings. RESULTS: Disfigurement ratings were not associated with several sociodemographic variables, supporting the discriminant validity of the scale. Disfigurement was significantly related to a diagnosis of oral cancer, a history of adjunctive radiation, the type of surgical procedure performed, the degree of physical dysfunction, and the presence of postoperative complications. Observer ratings of disfigurement were significantly related to patient ratings of disfigurement. These findings support the convergent validity of the disfigurement scale. Inter-rater reliability of the scale was high (intraclass correlation coefficient =.91). CONCLUSION: The study provides preliminary evidence for the validity and inter-rater reliability of a novel nine point observer-rated disfigurement scale that may be useful in evaluating the impact of disfigurement on quality of life in head and neck cancer.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it