Development, Sensibility, and Reliability of the Toronto Axial Spondyloarthritis Questionnaire in Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is an unacceptable delay in the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in its early stages among patients at high risk, in particular those with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our objectives were to develop a sensible and reliable questionnaire to identify undetected axSpA among patients with IBD. METHODS: Literature was reviewed for item generation in the Toronto axSpA Questionnaire on IBD (TASQ-IBD). Sensibility of the questionnaire was assessed among healthcare professionals and patients. This assessment was related to purpose and framework (clinical function, clinical justification, and clinical applicability), face validity, comprehensiveness [oligo-variability (limiting the questionnaire to important items) and transparency], replicability, content validity, and feasibility. The test-retest reliability study was administered to 77 patients with established IBD and axSpA. Kappa agreement coefficients and absolute agreement were calculated for items. RESULTS: Three domains included IBD, inflammatory back symptoms, and extraaxial features. The entry criterion required a patient to have IBD and back pain or stiffness that ever persisted for ≥ 3 months. Iterative sensibility assessment involved 16 items and a diagram of the back. Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.81-1.00 for each item. Absolute agreement across all items ranged from 91% to 100%. CONCLUSION: TASQ-IBD is a newly developed, sensible, and reliable case-finding questionnaire to be administered to patients with IBD who have ever had chronic back pain or stiffness persisting for ≥ 3 months. It should facilitate identification and timely referral of patients with IBD to rheumatologists and minimize the delay in diagnosis of axSpA. Consequently, it should assess the prevalence of axSpA in IBD.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".