Analysis of the Validation Status of Quality of Life and Functional Disability Measures in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Related to Systemic Sclerosis: Results of a Systematic Literature Analysis by the Expert Panel on Outcomes Measures in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Related to Systemic Sclerosis (EPOSS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the current validity status of the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and the 36-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). METHODS: Studies using HAQ-DI and/or SF-36 in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) associated with systemic sclerosis (PAH-SSc) were identified through a systematic literature review and assessed according to the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) consensus group criteria. RESULTS: Both HAQ-DI and SF-36 were considered credible (having face validity) and feasible. Based on expert opinion, neither HAQ-DI nor SF-36 was specific for PAH-SSc since their results may be influenced by other aspects of SSc (judged "unclear" with respect to the content validity criterion). In the overall SSc population, there was significant albeit weak correlation between physical component SF-36 scores and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) by echocardiography (Kendall tau b = -0.2, p < 0.01). Although HAQ-DI also correlated with PASP by echocardiography, there were no significant correlations in SSc patients with PAH proven by right heart catheterization between changes in HAQ-DI over time and changes in other PAH measures including 6-min walk distance (r = -0.04, p = 0.86), expert global assessment (r = 0.06, p = 0.97), and New York Heart Association functional class (r = 0.38, p = 0.39), indicating lack of construct validity for HAQ-DI in PAH-SSc. No studies enabling assessment of criterion validity or discrimination of HAQ-DI or SF-36 in PAH-SSc could be identified. CONCLUSION: Further validation of HAQ and SF-36 in PAH-SSc is needed. Alternatively, more specific assessments for functional disability or quality of life in PAH-SSc might be required.
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 | 0.129 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".