Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern medicine has had a considerable impact on mortality rates for serious illness. Many chronic diseases which have previously been associated with an increased mortality now have survival rates approaching those of the background population. However, chronic diseases such as cancer, chronic pain syndromes, and chronic inflammatory conditions impose a considerable burden on families, the health care system, and society. Health related quality of life (HRQOL) is a concept that has developed from the need to estimate the impact of such chronic diseases. HRQOL measurement is a conceptual framework which attempts to predict daily function and well being based on subjective attitudes and experiences of physical, social, and emotional health. It has been evaluated predominantly from the patient's viewpoint as proxy respondents appear to underestimate the full effect of chronic illness on functional status. Measuring HRQOL in clinical research is most frequently undertaken using multi-item questionnaires to estimate daily function. Factors which affect HRQOL can be broadly classed as disease related and disease independent. The use of different assessment techniques permits comparisons between and within disorders. Generic and disease specific instruments used together enhance the ability to direct treatment for individuals and patient populations. Psychometrically sound questionnaires must be used. However, the type of instrument and research methods adopted depend on the question of interest. We have attempted to catalogue and critically assess the disease specific instruments used in the assessment of chronic gastrointestinal disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".