Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease – Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire: prospective development and validation in Italian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To date, two questionnaires investigating the symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (Quality of Life Reflux and Dyspepsia and Reflux Disease Questionnaire) are validated in Italian, but neither of the two questionnaires was correlated with an instrumental examination. The aim of the present study is to improve the GERD-Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) questionnaire, to evaluate the reliability and validity of its Italian translation, and its sensitivity and specificity. METHODS: A modified Italian GERD-HRQL (MI-GERD-HRQL) questionnaire was developed adding six questions investigating on regurgitation, for a total of 15 questions. The forward-backward translation process was employed to obtain a definitive from-English-to-Italian version. Data obtained from the questionnaire were compared to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings. RESULTS: The questionnaire was administered twice to 130 Italian-speaking patients by two different and independent raters. Cronbach's α of the first and second questionnaire was 0.944 and 0.942, respectively. Spearman correlation and inter-rater reliability were 0.923 and 0.929, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity were 73.3 and 64%, and 69.5 and 64%, respectively, for the first and second questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The MI-GERD-HRQL questionnaire proved good consistency, reliability, sensitivity and specificity in the evaluation of typical GERD symptoms.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".