Measuring Time Input Loss Among Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the validity and test-retest reliability of the Valuation of Lost Productivity (VOLP) questionnaire among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Absenteeism, presenteeism, and unpaid work loss due to health were measured. Patients with RA who had paid work at their recent follow-up were recruited from the Early RA Network cohort. The VOLP was administered on two occasions. RESULTS: A total of 152 patients were included in our analysis. The correlations between VOLP and function, pain, fatigue, and disease activity ranged 0.24 to 0.42. The correlations between VOLP and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire were 0.57 for absenteeism, 0.42 for presenteeism, and 0.39 for unpaid work loss. The Kappa statistics were greater than 0.6 except for unpaid work loss. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the validity of the VOLP in measuring time input loss among people with RA.
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 | 0.010 |
| 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".