Test‐retest properties of the Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens and Experiences (PROBE) questionnaire and its constituent domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens and Experiences (PROBE) study aims to develop and validate questionnaire for assessing health status in patients with haemophilia and participants without bleeding disorders. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the test-retest properties of the PROBE questionnaire. METHODS: The PROBE questionnaire covers four domains and is comprised of 29 questions. People with haemophilia (PWH) and participants without bleeding disorder were invited to participate in this study. All participants were asked to complete the PROBE questionnaire three times (paper-based survey on two consecutive days: T1 and T2 and then a web-based version: T3). Test-retest properties and percentage agreement were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 63 participants were enrolled in this study with a median age of 50 (range: 17-76) years. Of these, 30 (47.6%) were PWH. On the questions common to PWH and participants without bleeding disorder, Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.69 to 1.00, indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement (T1 vs T2). For haemophilia-related questions (T1 vs T2), Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.5 to 1.0. Of these, 5 of 11 items were in perfect agreement (Kappa = 1.0). The web-based questionnaire (T3) showed substantial to almost perfect agreement with the paper version (T1 test-retest properties were comparable between PWH and individuals without a bleeding disorder). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that PROBE is a reliable tool to assess patient-reported outcomes for PWH and benchmark data in participants without bleeding disorder. The web-based questionnaire and the standard paper-based version can be used interchangeably.
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 | 0.041 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".