MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2505627800 · doi:10.3899/jrheum.151139

The Responsiveness of the Modified Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire

2016· article· en· W2505627800 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Shannon M. Peters, S. Ota, Emily Bolous, Erin E. Reich, Samantha Chait, Brian M. Feldman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Rheumatology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective. To determine the ability of the revised version of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ), the VAS CHAQ , to detect clinical change over time in pediatric patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). We studied the relative responsiveness of the VAS CHAQ as compared to the original CHAQ-30 and revised CHAQ-38, as well as the parent-patient, physician-patient, and physician-parent concordance. Methods. The CHAQ-38 and VAS CHAQ were administered to 30 parents and patients (if older than 8 years) with any subtype of JIA before and after the start of a new treatment. The standardized response means (SRM) were calculated for the VAS CHAQ , the original CHAQ-30, and the CHAQ-38. Comparisons of SRM were made using the relative SRM. Parent-patient, physician-patient, and physician-parent concordances were assessed by calculating a series of intraclass correlation coefficients. Results. Twenty-seven parents and 21 patients completed questionnaires at both visits. All questionnaires demonstrated large responsiveness; however, the VAS CHAQ was found to be about 25% more responsive than both the original CHAQ-30 and CHAQ-38. Conclusion. The VAS CHAQ was moderately more responsive than the CHAQ-30 and CHAQ-38 in both parent and patient groups and should be considered for use in studies evaluating change in function over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of RheumatologySame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207