The Gap Study (GapS) interview--developing a process to determine the meaning and determinants of quality of life in children with arthritis and rheumatic disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quality of Life (QOL) is a ubiquitous yet rarely precisely defined term. QOL may be determined by the differences (gaps) between our current situation and our expectations. Contemporary methods of measuring QOL often do not take these gaps into consideration. We performed this study to develop items and methods for measuring and valuing these gaps in order to better determine individual QOL for children with rheumatic diseases. METHODS: We generated items from literature review, other QOL measures and interviews with pediatric rheumatology patients and their families. Gap-scales to measure the discrepancy between a child's current state and the expected or desired state were designed and tested iteratively in pilot interviews. RESULTS: Thirty-one children (mean age=13.5 years, age range=6-17 years) and 22 parents were recruited through pediatric rheumatology clinics. The process of item generation, reduction and preliminary formatting yielded a list of 72 items. We developed a 3-point categorical scale of importance and a vertical visual analog scale (VAS) to determine individual valuation of items. 5 gap-scales were developed to reflect different aspects of the discrepancy between the child's current and expected or desired states for different QOL items. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a QOL interview based on theory that we can now test to see if it will enrich our understanding of the determinants of QOL in pediatric rheumatology patients and other chronically ill children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".