Test-Retest Reliability Analysis of the Patient Reported Outcomes Burdens and Experiences (PROBE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Patient Reported Outcomes Burdens and Experiences (PROBE) questionnaire was developed for assessing health status in patients with bleeding disorders, specifically, hemophilia. Phase I of PROBE study confirmed robustness of methodology and feasibility of the questionnaire. Objective: To investigate the test-retest reliability of PROBE questionnaire Methods: Patients and non-hemophilia individuals who attended an hemophilia related workshops were invited to participate in this study. All participants were asked to fill out a PROBE questionnaire for 3 times. The paper-based questionnaires were collected immediately after being filled out on day 1 and day 2. Participants were instructed to log into the website within 2 weeks and fill out the web-based questionnaire. Test-retest reliability was analyzed. Results: A total of 63 participants were enrolled in this study with a median age of 50 (range 14-76) years. Of these, 30 (47.6%) were hemophilia patients or carriers, 33 (52.5%) were participants with no known bleeding disorders. On general health domain, Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.69 to 0.90, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement for all items. Reliability of web-based questionnaire showed moderate to substantial agreement for all except 1 item. For hemophilia related domain, Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.5-1.0. Of these, 5 of 11 items were in perfect agreement (Kappa=1.0). Reliability of web-based questionnaire were in substantial to almost perfect agreement. For overall health related quality of life, EQ-5D had Kappa coefficients of 0.62 to 0.89. Intraclass correlation coefficient of visual analog scale (VAS) was 0.90 (95% confidence interval; 0.83-0.94). Test-retest reliability was comparable between hemophilia patients and participants with no known bleeding disorders. Conclusions: The results suggest that PROBE is a reliable tool to assess patients reported outcomes for hemophiliacs. Test-retest reliability analysis showed that the agreement was comparable between two participant populations. This result suggests that PROBE tool may be used to collect and compare not only patient reported outcome in hemophilia, but to generate norm values in appropriate control population. The Web-based questionnaire has an acceptable agreement with the standard paper-based version. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".