Development and validation of the Cholinergic Urticaria Quality‐of‐Life Questionnaire (CholU‐QoL)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cholinergic urticaria (CholU), a common form of chronic inducible urticaria, is characterized by itchy weals that occur in response to physical exercise or passive warming. CholU patients frequently exhibit a high burden of disease. As of yet, no specific instrument is available to assess their disease-related quality-of-life (QoL) impairment. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate the first disease-specific QoL instrument for CholU patients, the Cholinergic Urticaria Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CholU-QoL). METHODS: Using a combined approach of the literature search, semistructured patient interviews and expert opinion, we developed 96 potential CholU-QoL items. Subsequent item selection was performed by means of impact analysis complemented by an expert review for face validity. The resulting final CholU-QoL was then tested for levels of validity, reliability and influence factors in 88 CholU patients. In parallel, an US American-Canadian English version of the CholU-QoL was developed. RESULTS: The final 28-item CholU-QoL was found to have a 5-domain structure ("symptoms," "functional life," "social interaction," "therapy," "emotions") with excellent internal consistency. The CholU-QoL also showed a valid total score, and good levels of convergent validity, known-groups validity, as well as test-retest reliability. Multiple regression analysis found no significant drivers of the CholU-QoL total score. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The CholU-QoL is the first disease-specific QoL instrument for CholU and also the first specific QoL measure in the field of chronic inducible urticarias. It may serve as a valuable tool for clinical trials and improve routine patient management.
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 | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".