Further validation of the psychometric properties of the Bowel Function Index for evaluating opioid-induced constipation (OIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The BFI † (Bowel Function Index) is a 3-item questionnaire for assessing opioid-induced constipation (OIC). The aim of this study was to contribute to the validation of the psychometric properties of the BFI by confirming a constipation threshold, and through correlation with other validated tools: KESS (Knowles Eccersley Scott Symptom) score and generic (12-Item Short Form Health Survey, SF-12) and specific (Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life, PAC-QoL *) quality-of-life scores. METHODS: A survey on opioid-requiring cancer-patients was carried out in France. A questionnaire was filled out for all patients that recorded their demographic characteristics, an assessment of their constipation using BFI and KESS scores, and included a self-assessment of quality-of-life using PAC-QoL and SF-12. Correlation of BFI with KESS, PAC-QoL, and SF-12 was investigated. RESULTS: Five hundred and twenty patients participated in the entire data collection with no loss. BFI was shown to be statistically correlated (r = 0.571; p < 0.0001) with the KESS score and matches up with PAC-QoL and to a lesser extent with the SF-12 generic quality-of-life questionnaire. A BFI threshold of 27-29 to discriminate constipated from non-constipated patients was confirmed. KEY LIMITATIONS: This cross-sectional study in a selected population of cancer pain patients has validated the psychometric properties of the BFI. Further confirmation of the validity of the BFI could be sought through the use of longitudinal studies, and larger populations, such as non-cancer pain patients treated with opioids. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the validation of the psychometric properties of the BFI. It confirms the BFI as an easy-to-use tool to assess constipation and its impact on quality-of-life in chronic pain patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".