Combining Both Generic and Disease-Specific Properties: Development of the McGill COPD Quality of Life Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Presently, a generic and a disease-specific questionnaire are often co-administered to capture the different domains of quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) subjects. A health-related-quality of life (HRQL) questionnaire in COPD combining both generic and disease-specific properties is needed. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new, hybrid-HRQL questionnaire, the McGill-COPD-questionnaire, with qualities of both generic and disease-specific instruments. Using pre-defined criteria, we selected items from the SF-36 to complement the items from a COPD-specific-module to create the new hybrid-HRQL-questionnaire. Domains were identified via confirmatory factor analysis. The McGill COPD questionnaire is available in English and French; it assesses three domains: symptoms, physical-function and feelings, has 29 items: 17 from the COPD-specific-module and 12 from the SF-36. The symptom sub-scale has 6 items, all from the COPD-specific-module; the feelings sub-scale has 10 items, 5 each from COPD-specific-module and SF-36 and the physical-function sub-scale has 13 items, 6 from COPD-specific-module and 7 from SF-36. The McGill COPD questionnaire was developed using a novel method of combining items from the SF-36 and a COPD-specific-module. Thus, this new questionnaire has items from a generic-questionnaire and a disease-specific-module and, hence, is promising to be a stand alone quality-of-life questionnaire for COPD subjects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".