Patient Perspectives in OMERACT Provide an Anchor for Future Metric Development and Improved Approaches to Healthcare Delivery in Connective Tissue Disease Related Interstitial Lung Disease (CTD-ILD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The impact and natural history of connective tissue disease related interstitial lung disease (CTD-ILD) are poorly understood; and have not been previously described from the patient’s perspective. This investigation sought insight into CTD-ILD from the patients’ perspective to add to our knowledge of CTD-ILD, identify disease-specific areas of unmet need and gather potentially meaningful information towards development of disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Methods: A mixed methods design incorporating patient focus groups (FGs) querying disease progression and life impact followed by questionnaires with items of importance generated by >250 ILD specialists were implemented among CTDILD patients with rheumatoid arthritis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, systemic sclerosis, and other CTD subtypes. FG data were analyzed through inductive analysis with five independent analysts, including a patient research partner. Questionnaires were analyzed through Fisher’s Exact tests and hierarchal cluster analysis. Results: Six multicenter FGs included 45 patients. Biophysiologic themes were cough and dyspnea, both pervasively impacting health related quality of life (HRQoL). Language indicating dyspnea was unexpected, unique and contextual. Psycho-social themes were Living with Uncertainty, Struggle over Self-Identity, and Self-Efficacy - with education and clinician communication strongly emphasised. All questionnaire items were rated ‘moderately’ to ‘extremely’ important with 10 items of highest importance identified by cluster analysis. Conclusion: Patients with CTD-ILD informed our understanding of symptoms and impact on HRQoL. Cough and dyspnea are central to the CTD-ILD experience. Initial FGs have provided disease-specific content, context and language essential for reliable PROM development with questionnaires adding value in recognition of patients’ concerns. Keywords: Communication, connective tissue disease, focus groups, interstitial lung disease, patient experience, patient reported outcome measures, questionnaire.
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 | 0.028 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".