Patient versus proxy‐reported problematic activities of daily life in patients with COPD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Loved ones (proxies) of patients with COPD are confronted with the patients' limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs). However, it remains unknown whether proxies are able to correctly estimate the problematic ADLs of the patient. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the level of agreement between patient-reported and proxy-reported problematic ADLs of the patient. METHODS: Stable outpatients with moderate to very severe COPD (n = 194) and their resident proxies (n = 194) were included in this cross-sectional study. Patients' problematic ADLs were assessed in the domains 'self-care', 'mobility', 'productivity' and 'leisure' using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in both patients and resident proxies. Furthermore, the perceived performance and satisfaction for important problematic ADLs were rated on a 10-point scale. RESULTS: In total, 830 problematic ADLs were reported by patients, and 735 by proxies. Agreement in reporting problematic ADLs within a domain was poor (productivity and leisure; κ; = 0.20 and 0.16, respectively) to fair (self-care and mobility; κ = 0.32 and 0.22, respectively). Similar performance and satisfaction scores, for equally reported problematic ADLs, were given by 24.0% and 17.6% of the pairs, respectively. CONCLUSION: Proxies were often not able to identify the patients' most important problematic ADLs. Moreover, when patient and proxy agreed about the presence of a specific problematic ADL, the perception of the performance and the satisfaction with that performance differed within most pairs. This emphasizes the importance of involving proxies, besides patients alone, in identifying patients' problematic ADLs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".