Discordance between pediatric self‐report and parent proxy‐report symptom scores and creation of a dyad symptom screening tool (co‐SSPedi)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) (age 8-18 years) and mini-SSPedi (age 4-7 years) can be used to self-report and proxy-report bothersome symptoms in pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments. There are limitations of sole child self-report or proxy-report. An approach in which children and parents complete symptom reports together may be useful. The aim of our study was to describe discordance between child self-report and parent proxy-report symptom scores, and to determine how these scores compare to an approach in which reporting is performed together (co-SSPedi). Children and parents completed SSPedi or mini-SSPedi separately. Discordant symptoms were shared with respondents and discussed. Next, the dyad completed co-SSPedi together and were asked which approach they preferred. Discordance was evaluated for each symptom and was defined as a difference of at least 2 points on an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (not at all bothered) to 4 (extremely bothered). Of the 48 enrolled dyads (children, median age, 10.8 years; 54.2% male), 41 (85.4%) had discordance in at least one symptom. There was no clear pattern in discordance by age group. When a dyad approach was used, more co-SSPedi scores agreed with the original child self-report scores (59 dyads, 56.2%) compared to original parent proxy-report scores (15 dyads, 14.3%) for discordant symptoms. Forty-three (89.6%) dyads preferred to complete SSPedi together. Future work should evaluate the psychometric properties of co-SSPedi.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".