Japanese version of the Family Dermatology Life Quality Index: Translation and validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skin conditions affect the quality of life (QoL) of patients and their family. To assess family members' QoL, a questionnaire uniquely designed for family members is necessary. We translated the Family Dermatology Life Quality Index (FDLQI), originally created and validated by Basra et al., into Japanese, and evaluated its reliability and validity. For psychometric evaluations, 150 dermatology patients and their family members were included. The Japanese version of the FDLQI showed high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.95) and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86). FDLQI scores significantly correlated with DLQI scores (r = 0.58, P < 0.01, Spearman's rho) and global question (GQ) which measured the patient's skin condition on a visual analog scale (r = 0.36, P < 0.01). Family members of patients with inflammatory skin diseases showed higher FDLQI scores than those with isolated lesions, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.062, Mann-Whitney U-test). Responsiveness to change was demonstrated in a group in which the patient's skin condition was assessed as improved (n = 37, r = 0.46, P < 0.01) but not in that in which it became worse. The difference of the change between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.01). Additionally, the change in FDLQI scores and GQ were significantly correlated (r = 0.40, P < 0.01). Exploratory factor analysis suggested essential unidimensionality of the instrument. We showed acceptable validity and responsiveness of this Japanese version of FDLQI. Further clinical epidemiological studies are required to confirm this.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".