Development of a Novel Tool to Assess the Impact of Itching in Pediatric Cholestasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to develop a clinical outcome assessment (COA) for itching in children with cholestatic pruritus. METHODS: This prospective study aimed to enroll patients aged 4-30 years with Alagille syndrome (ALGS) or progressive familial intrahepatic cholestasis type 1 and caregivers of patients aged 5 months to 14 years. Eligible patients experienced itching during ≥3 of the 7 days before enrollment and had not undergone liver transplant or surgical interruption of the enterohepatic circulation. Open-ended qualitative interviews confirmed that itching was a primary concern for patients and caregivers. Diaries were modified and then evaluated by participants during cognitive debriefing. Interview results were reviewed by clinical, COA and statistical experts. Diary questions were revised following an interim analysis before finalizing the Itch Reported Outcome (ItchRO). RESULTS: Thirty-six interviews were analyzed, representing 25 families of patients with ALGS. Itching was reported spontaneously (without prompting by the interviewer) by ten of 12 patients with ALGS and 19 of 20 caregivers. Consequences of itching included skin damage (78%), mood changes (59%), and difficulties staying asleep (59%) or falling asleep (53%). Two versions of the ItchRO were developed: ItchRO(Patient) for self-completion by patients and ItchRO(Observer) for caregivers. The ItchRO diaries comprise a single scorable item to assess itch and are to be completed twice daily (morning and evening). CONCLUSIONS: Itching was the most bothersome ALGS symptom reported by study participants. We have developed the ItchRO(Patient) and ItchRO(Observer) to assess itching in children with ALGS and other cholestatic liver diseases. These diaries are being validated for use in clinical trials.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".