Minimum important difference of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS in fibrotic interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 5-Levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is a multidimensional patient-reported questionnaire that supports calculation of quality-adjusted life-years. Our objectives were to demonstrate feasibility of use and to calculate the minimum important difference (MID) of the EQ-5D-5L and its associated visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients with fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). METHODS: Patients who completed the EQ-5D-5L were identified from the prospective multicentre CAnadian REgistry for Pulmonary Fibrosis. Validity, internal consistency and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L were assessed, followed by calculation of the MID for the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. Anchor-based methods used an unadjusted linear regression against pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and dyspnoea and other quality of life questionnaires. Distribution-based method used one-half SD and SE measurement (SEM) calculations. RESULTS: 1816 patients were analysed, including 472 (26%) with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. EQ-5D-5L scores were strongly correlated with the dyspnoea and other quality of life questionnaires and weakly associated with PFTs. The estimated MID for EQ-5D-5L ranged from 0.0050 to 0.054 and from 0.078 to 0.095 for the anchor-based and distribution-based methods, respectively. The MID for EQ-VAS ranged from 0.5 to 5.0 and from 8.0 to 9.7 for the anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Findings were similar across ILD subtypes, sex and age. CONCLUSION: We used a large and diverse cohort of patients with a variety of fibrotic ILD subtypes to suggest validity and MID of both the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS. These findings will assist in designing future clinical trials and supporting cost-effectiveness analyses of potential treatments for patients with fibrotic ILD.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".