Determinants of discordance between patients and physicians in their assessment of lupus disease activity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated different methods for quantifying patient-physician discordance and identified factors associated with discordance in the assessment of lupus disease activity. METHODS: Data from 208 female patients who had a comprehensive annual examination were extracted from the Montreal General Hospital Lupus Registry. Discordance was measured by the difference between the patient self-reported 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS) and the physician VAS for global disease activity (VASDIFF). Multiple linear regression was used to identify the correlates of discordance, e.g., SF-36TM scales, Systemic Lupus Activity Measure (SLAM) components, etc. Four regression models were estimated using: (1) all patients; (2) only patients who evaluated disease activity higher than their physician's assessment; (3) only patients who evaluated disease activity lower than their physician's assessment; and (4) all patients, with the absolute value of VASDIFF as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Of the 208 observations, 150 (72%) of the VASDIFF scores were within +/- 2.5 cm on a 10 cm scale, indicating absence of marked discordance; 43 (20.7%) were from patients overscoring and 15 (7.2%) from patients underscoring their physician by at least 2.5 cm. Higher SF-36 role physical score, more bodily pain, and lower role emotional score in addition to the SLAM-skin component were independently associated with higher discordance. SF-36 social function and mental health scores as well as SLAM-neurological and kidney components were correlated with discordance in some subanalyses. Bodily pain was the most important variable for predicting "clinically relevant" discordance, followed by SLAM-skin and kidney components. CONCLUSION: Discordance between patients and physicians may result from patients scoring their disease activity based on their psychological and physical well-being, whereas physicians score disease activity based on the clinical and physical signs and symptoms of lupus.
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 | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".