Validation and minimum important difference of the UCSD Shortness of Breath Questionnaire in fibrotic interstitial lung disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: The University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSDSOBQ) is a frequently used domain-specific dyspnea questionnaire; however, there is little information available regarding its use and minimum important difference (MID) in fibrotic interstitial lung disease (ILD). We aimed to describe the key performance characteristics of the UCSDSOBQ in this population. METHODS: UCSDSOBQ scores and selected anchors were measured in 1933 patients from the prospective multi-center Canadian Registry for Pulmonary Fibrosis. Anchors included the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), percent-predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%), diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (DLCO%), and 6-min walk distance (6MWD). Concurrent validity, internal consistency, ceiling and floor effects, and responsiveness were assessed, followed by estimation of the MID by anchor-based (linear regression) and distribution-based methods (standard error of measurement). RESULTS: The UCSDSOBQ had a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97), no obvious floor or ceiling effect, strong correlations with SGRQ, EQ-5D-5L, and EQ-VAS (|r| > 0.5), and moderate correlations with FVC%, DLCO%, and 6MWD (0.3 < |r| < 0.5). The MID estimate for UCSDSOBQ was 5 points (1-8) for the anchor-based method, and 4.5 points for the distribution-based method. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the validity of UCSDSOBQ in a large and heterogeneous population of patients with fibrotic ILD, and provides a robust MID estimate of 5-8 points.
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 | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".