MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3162852864 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/9fjwr

Development and Validation of Fear of Relapse Scale for Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

2018· preprint· en· W3162852864 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Khatibi, Nahid Moradi, Naghmeh Rahbari, Taranom Salehi, Mohsen Dehghani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiple sclerosisAnticipation (artificial intelligence)DASSCronbach's alphaAnxietyPsychologyClinical psychologyScale (ratio)Depression (economics)DiseaseMedicinePsychiatryPsychometricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is a potentially debilitating chronic disease in most cases diagnosed after an acute relapse and characterized by the occurrence of relapse in most patients. Due to the unknown course of the disease patients in early phases must deal with the stress of anticipation of a relapse and unpredictable consequences of that relapse. Objective: This is the first effort to develop a self-report measure of Fear of Relapse (FoR) in patients with Relapsing-Remitting (RR) MS. Methods: A 31- item scale was created from in-depth clinical interviews with 33 RRMS patients. This scale was completed by 168 RRMS patients (51 patients completed the scale one more time a month later) who completed the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS) and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS) as well. Results: A factor analysis revealed three components, and five items failed to load on any of them. The final version of the scale consisted of 26 items. Two-components solution factor analysis after pooling the FoR items once with DASS items and once with IUS items revealed independency of the FoR from previously developed scales. Cronbach’s Alpha was equal to 0.92. Test-retest reliability for total score was equal to 0.74 (p<0.001). Conclusion: The FoR scale proved to be a highly reliable and valid measure in RRMS patients and application of that in future studies trying to create a psychological profile of patients at earlier stages of the disease can help researchers and clinicians to have a more comprehensive image.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMultiple Sclerosis Research Studies→French-language works237,207→