Measuring Physical Function in Psoriatic Arthritis: Comparing the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire to the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare physical function scales of the Multidimensional Health Assessment Questionnaire (MDHAQ) with that of the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and to examine whether either questionnaire is less prone to "floor effects." METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 2018 to 2019 across 3 UK hospitals. All patients completed physical function scales within the MDHAQ and HAQ-DI in a single clinic visit. Agreement was assessed using medians and the Bland-Altman method. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Two hundred ten patients completed the clinic visit; 1 withdrew consent. Thus, 209 were analyzed. Sixty percent were male, with mean age of 51.7 years and median disease duration of 7 years. In clinic, median MDHAQ and HAQ-DI including/excluding aids scores were 0.30, 0.50, and 0.50 respectively. Although the median score for HAQ-DI was higher than for MDHAQ, the difference between the 2 scores was mostly within 1.96 SDs from the mean, suggesting good agreement. The ICCs demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability for both the MDHAQ and HAQ-DI. Similar numbers of patients scored 0 on the MDHAQ and HAQ-DI including/excluding aids (48, 47, and 49, respectively). Using a score of ≤ 0.5 as a cutoff for minor functional impairment, 23 patients had a MDHAQ ≤ 0.5 when their HAQ-DI including aids was > 0.5. Conversely, 4 patients had a MDHAQ > 0.5 when the HAQ-DI including aids was ≤ 0.5. CONCLUSION: Both the MDHAQ and HAQ-DI appear to be similar in detecting floor effects in patients with PsA.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".