A comparison of the MOS-HIV and SF-12v2 for measuring health-related quality of life of men and women living with HIV/AIDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the Medical Outcomes Study-HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV) and the SF-12v2 to determine if the latter is adequate to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of men and women living with HIV/AIDS. 112 men and women living with HIV/AIDS who access care at a tertiary HIV clinic in Hamilton, Ontario were included in this cross-sectional analysis. Correlation coefficients of the MOS-HIV physical and mental health summary scores (PHS and MHS) and the SF-12v2 physical and mental component summary scales (PCS and MCS) were calculated along with common sub-domains of the measures including physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP), general health perceptions (GH), vitality (VT), social functioning (SF) and mental health (MH) to explore the relationship between these two HRQoL measures. The sub-domains role physical (RP) and role emotional (RE) of the SF-12v2 were compared separately to the sub-domain role functioning (RF) of the MOS-HIV. Weighted kappa scores were calculated to determine agreement beyond chance between the MOS-HIV and SF-12v2 in assigning a HRQoL state (i.e. low, moderate, good, very good). RESULTS: The MOS-HIV had mean PHS and MHS summary scores of 47.3 (SD = 11.5) and 49.2 (SD = 10.7) respectively. The mean SF-12v2 PCS and MCS scores were 47.7 (SD = 11.0) and 44.0 (SD = 10.4). The MOS-HIV and SF-12v2 physical and mental health summary scores were positively correlated (r = 0.84, p < 0.001 and r = 0.76, p < 0.001). All common sub-domains were significantly correlated at p values from < 0.001 to 0.034. Substantial agreement was observed in assigning a HRQoL state (Physical: κ = 0.788, SE = 0.095; Mental: κ = 0.707, SE = 0.095). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis validates the SF-12v2 for measuring HRQoL in adult men and women living with HIV/AIDS.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".