Agreement Between Patient and Proxy Assessments of Health-Related Quality of Life After Stroke Using the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Proxy informants can provide information on patients who are limited in ability to self-assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) after stroke. One alternative is to exclude assessments of such patients and attenuate generalizability. The purpose of this study was to examine patient-proxy agreement on the domains and summary scores of the EQ-5D and Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) after stroke. METHODS: An observational longitudinal cohort of 124 patients hospitalized after ischemic stroke and their family caregivers completed the HRQL measures at baseline and were followed up for 6 months. Patient and proxy agreement was assessed by use of weighted kappa or the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: At baseline, the more observable domains of HRQL demonstrated greater agreement than the more subjective components. Cross-sectional point estimates of agreement were generally acceptable (ICC >0.70) for the EQ-5D Index and HUI3 summary scores when assessed >or=1 month after baseline. Agreement between change scores was generally poor to fair (ICC <0.60), but systematic bias was not observed for the indirect preference-based summary scores between baseline and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that proxy assessments obtained 6 months after stroke are more reliable than those obtained within 2 to 3 weeks after stroke. Although proxy-assessed change scores for indirect preference-based summary scores of the EQ-5D and HUI3 provided suboptimal agreement with patient assessment, limited systematic bias may support their consideration as alternatives to missing data or statistical imputation. Further research into the validity and reliability of proxy assessments is suggested.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".