Validation of the Spanish, Portuguese and French versions of the Lupus Damage Index questionnaire: data from North and South America, Spain and Portugal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously developed and validated a self-administered questionnaire, modelled after the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Damage Index (SDI), the Lupus Damage Index Questionnaire (LDIQ), which may allow the ascertainment of this construct in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients followed in the community and thus expand observations made about damage. We have now translated, back-translated and adapted the LDIQ to Spanish, Portuguese and French and applied it to patients followed at academic and non-academic centres in North and South America, Portugal and Spain while their physicians scored the SDI. A total of 887 patients (659 Spanish-speaking, 140 Portuguese-speaking and 80 French-speaking patients) and 40 physicians participated. Overall, patients scored all LDIQ versions higher than their physicians (total score and all domains). Infrequent manifestations had less optimal clinimetric properties but overall agreement was more than 95% for the majority of items. Higher correlations were observed among the Spanish-speaking patients than the Portuguese-speaking and French-speaking patients; further adjustments may be needed before the Portuguese and French versions of the LDIQ are applied in community-based studies. The relationship between the LDIQ and other outcome parameters is currently being investigated in a different patient sample.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".