Potential Measurement Properties of a Questionnaire for Eating-Related Distress Among Advanced Cancer Patients With Cachexia: Preliminary Findings of Reliability and Validity Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are no validated tools for measuring eating-related distress among patients with advanced cancer. Objective: The aim of the study was to investigate the potential measurement properties of a questionnaire for eating-related distress. Methods: This is a secondary analysis. We performed an exploratory factor analysis for factorial validity and calculated Cronbach’s α for internal consistency. Patients were classified into the 2 groups categorized using the international cachexia criteria. The total scores of each factor and all items were calculated, and comparisons were performed for known-group validity. We performed statistical correlation analysis for concurrent validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity using Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient. Results: A total of 140 patients responded. Three factors were identified. The values of Cronbach’s α were 0.90, 0.89, and 0.86, respectively. Patients were classified into 2 groups: Non-cachexia/Pre-cachexia (n = 57) and Cachexia/Refractory cachexia (n = 83). Significant differences were observed in the total scores of each factor and all items: (factor 1) 7.5 vs. 11.0, p < 0.001; (factor 2) 8.0 vs. 13.0, p < 0.001; (factor 3) 5.0 vs. 10.0, p < 0.001; (all items) 20.0 vs. 35.0, p < 0.001, respectively. The total scores of each factor and all items significantly correlated with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised and the nutrition impact symptoms: 0.62 (p < 0.001) and 0.63 (p < 0.001), respectively. Scaling success rates were 100% in factor 1, 2, and 3. Conclusion: The questionnaire appears to be useful. Eating-related distress in patients with advanced cancer had 3 factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".