Development and validation of a simple and multifaceted instrument, GERD-TEST, for the clinical evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux and dyspeptic symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMTo evaluate the psychometric properties of a newly developed questionnaire, known as the gastroesophageal reflux and dyspepsia therapeutic efficacy and satisfaction test (GERD-TEST), in patients with GERD. METHODSJapanese patients with predominant GERD symptoms recruited according to the Montreal definition were treated for 4 wk using a standard dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI).The GERD-TEST and the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-8 Health Survey (SF-8) were administered at baseline and after 4 wk of treatment.The GERD-TEST contains three domains: the severity of GERD and functional dyspepsia (FD) symptoms (5 items), the level of dissatisfaction with daily life (DS) (4 items), and the therapeutic efficacy as assessed by the patients and medication compliance (4 items). RESULTSA total of 290 patients were eligible at baseline; 198 of these patients completed 4 wk of PPI therapy.The internal consistency reliability as evaluated using the Cronbach's α values for the GERD, FD and DS subscales ranged from 0.75 to 0.82.The scores for the GERD, FD and DS items/subscales were significantly correlated with the physical and mental component summary scores of the SF-8.After 4 wk of PPI treatment, the scores for the GERD items/subscales were greatly reduced, ranging in value from 1.51 to 1.87 and with a large effect size (P < 0.0001, Cohen's d ; 1.29-1.63).Statistically significant differences in the changes in the scores for the GERD items/subscales were observed between treatment responders and non-responders (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONThe GERD-TEST has a good reliability, a good convergent and concurrent validity, and is responsive to the effects of treatment.The GERD-TEST is a simple, easy to understand, and multifaceted PRO instrument applicable to both clinical trials and the primary care of GERD patients.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".