The Academic Medical Center Linear Disability Score item bank: psychometric properties of a new generic disability measure in rheumatoid arthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychometric properties of the Academic Medical Center (AMC) Linear Disability Scale (ALDS) item bank in a population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: 129 patients with RA completed the ALDS and Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) at baseline, and after 8 and 16 weeks of anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha treatment. Disease activity assessments at these timepoints included serum levels of C-reactive protein, Disease Activity Score 28, morning stiffness, and visual analog scales for global disease activity and fatigue. RESULTS: Reliability of the ALDS was excellent (homogeneity, Cronbach's alpha = 0.95; test-retest, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.93). The ALDS results at baseline were strongly correlated with the HAQ-DI (r = -0.75). With regard to known group validity, both instruments discriminated between higher and lower disease activity (ALDS, p < 0.0001; HAQ-DI, p = 0.002) and between non-, moderate, and good responders (ALDS, p = 0.002; HAQ-DI, p < 0.0001), indicating that both instruments differentiate between groups. The ALDS was moderately to highly responsive to changes between baseline and after 8 weeks and 16 weeks of treatment (standardized response mean, range = 0.71-1.19). No substantial floor or ceiling effects were found. CONCLUSION: Our results show that the ALDS is a promising new instrument, with at least equivalent psychometric properties compared to the HAQ-DI. Advantages of the ALDS item bank are its linear structure and an item bank that can be adapted depending on the ability level of the patient.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".