Patient-reported Outcomes and Adult Patients’ Disease Experience in the Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies. Report from the OMERACT 11 Myositis Special Interest Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The newly formed Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Myositis Special Interest Group (SIG) was established to examine patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in myositis. At OMERACT 11, a literature review of PROM used in the idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) and other neuromuscular conditions was presented. The group examined in more detail 2 PROM more extensively evaluated in patients with IIM, the Myositis Activities Profile, and the McMaster-Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire, through the OMERACT filter of truth, discrimination, and feasibility. Preliminary results from a qualitative study of patients with myositis regarding their symptoms were discussed that emphasized the range of symptoms experienced: pain, physical tightness/stiffness, fatigue, disease effect on emotional life and relationships, and treatment-related side effects. Following discussion of these results and following additional discussions since OMERACT 11, a research agenda was developed. The next step in evaluating PROM in IIM will require additional focus groups with a spectrum of patients with different myositis disease phenotypes and manifestations across a range of disease activity, and from multiple international settings. The group will initially focus on dermatomyositis and polymyositis in adults. Qualitative analysis will facilitate the identification of commonalities and divergent patient-relevant aspects of disease, insights that are critical given the heterogeneous manifestations of these diseases. Based on these qualitative studies, existing myositis PROM can be examined to more thoroughly assess content validity, and will be important to identify gaps in domain measurement that will be required to develop a preliminary core set of patient-relevant domains for IIM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".