Scale Banking for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures That Measure Functioning in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Daily Activities Metric.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Functioning is an important outcome for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Heterogeneity of respective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) challenges direct comparisons between their results. This study aimed to standardize reporting of such PROMs measuring functioning in RA to facilitate comparability. METHODS: Common-item nonequivalent group design with the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) as a common scale across data sets from various countries (including the UK, Turkey, and Germany) to establish a common metric was used. Other PROMs included are the physical function items of the Multidimensional HAQ (MDHAQ), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHODAS II), the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) health survey, and 4 short forms (20, 10, 6, and 4 physical function items) from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. As the HAQ includes mobility, self-care, and domestic life items, this study focuses on these 3 domains. PROMs were described using standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable difference (SDD). A Rasch measurement model was used to create the common metric. RESULTS: The range of the SEM was 0.2 (MDHAQ) to 7.4 (SF-36 health survey physical functioning domain). The SDD revealed a range from 9.7% (WOMAC rating scale) to 33.5% (WHODAS physical functioning domain). PROMs co-calibration revealed fit to the Rasch measurement model. A transformation table was developed to allow exchange between PROM scores. CONCLUSION: Scores between the daily activity PROMs commonly used in RA can now be compared. Factors such as SEM and SDD help to determine the choice of a PROM in clinical practice and research.
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 | 0.023 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
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".