Diagnostik prämenstrueller Störungen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hintergrund und Fragestellung: In der deutschsprachigen Literatur gibt es kein validiertes Fragebogeninstrument zur Erfassung schwerer prämenstrueller Störungen. Unser Anliegen war es, die „Premenstrual Syndrome Tension Observer” bzw. „Self-Rating Scale” (PMTS -O bzw. -SR) und die „Visuelle Analogskala für Prämenstruelle Störungen” (VAS-PmS) in einer deutschsprachige Übersetzung der Validierung und Reliabilitätsprüfung zu unterziehen. Patienten und Methodik : 55 Patientinnen mit klinisch nach dem „Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV” (DSM IV) diagnostizierter prämenstrueller Dysphorie (PMD) nahmen an der Studie teil. Nach Erfüllung der Einschlusskriterien erfolgte die Erhebung soziodemographischer und medizinischer Daten. Die Selbstbeurteilung mittels PMTS-SR und VAS-PmS wurde 2 Tage prämenstruell und 9 Tage postmenstruell für alle 55 Probandinnen erhoben. Die Fremdbeurteilung (klinisches Interview und PMTS-O als Referenzstandard) wurde in Unkenntnis der Selbstbeurteilung jeweils anschließend durchgeführt. Ergebnisse : Das Durchschnittsalter der Probandinnen betrug 35 (20 - 45) Jahre. Die durchschnittliche prämenstruelle Symptomzunahme von 85 % (PMTS-O und PMTS-SR) weist auf eine Gruppe mit schweren prämenstruellen Störungen hin. Der Korrelationskoeffizient zwischen PMTS-O und PMTS-SR betrug prä- bzw postmenstruell 0,83 bzw. 0,84 (jeweils p < 0,0001). Der Korrelationskoeffizient zwischen PMTS-O und VAS-PmS betrug prä- bzw. postmenstruell 0,5 bzw. 0,69 ( jeweils p < 0,0001). Zwischen PMTS-SR und VAS-PmS wurde dieser mit 0,64 bzw. 0,67 (jeweils p < 0,0001) kalkuliert. Die Reliabilitätsanalyse mittels Cronbach alpha ergab für den PMTS-O prä/postmenstruell 0,71/0,29, für den PMTS-SR 0,77/0,78 und für den VAS-PmS 0,79/0,87. Folgerungen : Die deutschsprachige Fassung der PMTS-O und der PMTS-SR stellten ein valides „anwenderfreundliches” Inventar zur Unterstützung der Diagnostik, Verlaufsbeobachtung und Forschung prämenstrueller Störungen dar. Der VAS-PmS sollte primär in Kombination mit PMTS-O bzw. PMTS-SR Anwendung finden. Background and objective : There is no valid method in the German literature for assessing premenstrual disorders. This study was undertaken to translate into German, validate and test the reliability of the „Premenstrual Syndrome Tension Observer/Self-Rating Scale” and the „Visual Analogue Scale for Premenstrual Disorders”. Patients and methods : 55 patients diagnosed with premenstrual dysphoric disorder took part in the study. After fullfilling the inclusion criteria, sociodemographic and medical data were studied. The self-assessment by PMTS-SR and VAS-PmD was done two days premenstrual and nine days postmenstrual by all 55 patients. The objective assessment (done by a clinical interview and the PMTS-O as the reference standard) was obtained afterwards without knowing the self-assessment. Results : The average age of the tested women was 35 years. The average increase of 85 % in premenstrual symptoms (PMTS-O and PMTS-SR scale) indicates a group with severe premenstrual disorders. The correlation coefficient between PMTS-O and PMTS-SR scale, pre- and postmenstrually, was 0.83 and 0.84, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both). The correlation coefficient between PMTS-O and VAS-PmD, pre- and postmenstrually, was 0.5 and 0.69, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both). This was calculated at 0.64 and 0.67, respectively (p < 0.0001 for both) between PMTS-SR and VAS-PmD. Reliability analysis for PMTS-O was, pre- and postmenstrually, 0.71 and 0.29, respectively, for PMTS-SR 0.77 and 0.78, respectively, and for VAS-PmD it was 0.79 and 0.87, respectively. Conclusions : The German version of the PMTS-O and the PMTS-SR scale are „application friendly” as well as proven to be a valid and reliable method for supporting the diagnosis, course of disease and research aspects concerning premenstrual disorders. Initially VAS-PmD should be used in combination with PMTS-O and PMTS-SR scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".