Comparing the Patient‐Reported Physical Function Outcome Measures in a Real‐Life International Cohort of Patients With Psoriatic Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the psychometric properties of 3 patient-reported outcome measures to assess the physical function in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Data were available for the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (HAQ DI), the 12-item Short Form instrument physical component summary (SF-12 PCS), and the Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease instrument functional capacity score (PsAID-FC). Data came from a longitudinal study in 14 countries of consecutive adults with definite PsA with ≥2 years of duration. The score distribution, construct validity, responsiveness, and thresholds of meaning of the patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. RESULTS: At baseline, 414 subjects (52% male) were analyzed. The mean ± SD age was 52.4 ± 12.5 years and duration of illness was 10.9 ± 8.1 years. Ceiling effects were noted in 31% and 21% of patients for HAQ DI and PsAID-FC, respectively; floor effects were minimal. All 3 patient-reported outcome measures met a priori hypotheses for construct validity. After a median follow-up of 4.1 (interquartile range 2.7) months in 350 patients, 27%, 54%, and 18% of patients reported themselves improved, not changed, and worsened, respectively. Change scores were statistically different for groups for worsening versus no-change for all patient-reported outcome measures. PsAID-FC was more sensitive to change than the other 2 patient-reported outcome measures. Comparing groups with worsening condition to no-change, the standardized response mean square ratios were HAQ DI 29.9, SF-12 PCS 16.7, and PsAID-FC 40.1. CONCLUSION: HAQ DI, SF-12 PCS, and PsAID-FC are valid measures of physical function for PsA. PsAID-FC, a single question, performed similarly to the other patient-reported outcome measures and may be an additional option to measure PsA-specific physical function.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".