Patient-reported outcome instruments for assessing Raynaud’s phenomenon in systemic sclerosis: A SCTC vascular working group report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The episodic nature of Raynaud’s phenomenon in systemic sclerosis has led to a reliance on patient-reported outcome instruments such as the Raynaud’s Condition Score diary. Little is known about the utilization in routine clinical practice and health professional attitudes toward existing patient-reported outcome instruments for assessing systemic sclerosis-Raynaud’s phenomenon. Members of the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium Vascular Working Group (n = 28) were invited to participate in a survey gauging attitudes toward the Raynaud’s Condition Score diary and the perceived need for novel patient-reported outcome instruments for assessing patient-reported outcome. Nineteen Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium Vascular Working Group members (68% response rate) from academic units based in North America (n = 9), Europe (n = 8), South America (n = 1) and Australasia (n = 1) took part in the survey. There was broad consensus that Raynaud’s Condition Score diary returns could be influenced by factors including seasonal variation in weather, efforts made by patients to avoid or ameliorate attacks of Raynaud’s phenomenon, habituation to Raynaud’s phenomenon symptoms, evolution of Raynaud’s phenomenon symptom characteristics with progressive obliterative microangiopathy, patient-coping strategies, respondent burden and placebo effect. There was consensus that limitations of the Raynaud’s Condition Score diary might be a barrier to drug development (79% of respondents agree/strongly agree) and that a novel patient-reported outcome instrument for assessing systemic sclerosis-Raynaud’s phenomenon should be developed with the input of both clinicians and patients (84% agree/strongly agree). Perceived potential limitations of the Raynaud’s Condition Score diary have been identified along with concerns that such factors might impede drug development programs for systemic sclerosis-Raynaud’s phenomenon. There is support within the systemic sclerosis community for the development of a novel patient-reported outcome instrument for assessing systemic sclerosis-Raynaud’s phenomenon.
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 | 0.046 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".