A Critical Examination of the Polysymptomatic Distress Scale Construct as a Symptom Severity Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
> A confusion develops between the use of scores to measure severity, and the same scores to establish diagnosis. > > Hugh A. Smythe J Rheumatol 2011;38:975–8 The assessment of disease severity is an essential undertaking related to morbidity and mortality. Ideally such assessment involves the use of objective markers, such as the level of hemoglobin in anemia or distribution of the number of erosions in rheumatoid arthritis. In many diseases within the sphere of rheumatology, objective markers have yet to be discovered. This situation has led to a profusion of questionnaires aimed at measuring disease severity. Such questionnaires need to be carefully designed to address the disorder under scrutiny and comprehensively validated to ensure their scientific reliability. The main symptom in most rheumatological disorders is pain. There are currently no generally available objective measures of pain, and its assessment invariably relies upon questionnaires, such as the Brief Pain Inventory1, or scales such as the visual analog scale2,3. Further, the evaluation of pain is complicated by its multidimensionality; most patients with chronic pain are fatigued, commonly depressed, often functionally impaired, and existentially distressed. The development of questionnaires has become a specialty in its own right, with its own arcane vocabulary, statistical complexities, and even its own journals. Achieving the right balance of generality and specificity without loss of content or efficiency is a challenging undertaking. In this issue of The Journal , Wolfe and colleagues present the Polysymptomatic Distress Scale (PSD) as a useful general severity measure and advocate its ease of interpretation by assigning 5 severity categories (none, mild, moderate, severe, and very severe)4. The PSD is derived from Dr. Wolfe’s 2010 diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia (FM)5. It combines 2 scales used for diagnosis: the Widespread Pain Index (WPI; 0–19) and the Symptom Severity Scale (SSS; 0–12) for … Address correspondence to R. Friend, Oregon Health and Sciences University, 2347 NW Overton St., Portland, Oregon 97210, USA. E-mail: ronald.friend{at}stonybrook.edu
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 | 0.021 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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".