R-scale for pulmonary fibrosis: a simple, visual tool for the assessment of health-related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) experience impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Several tools have been developed to objectively assess HRQoL in this patient population, but none are in use in routine clinical practice. Objectives To develop a rapid, specific tool that can be used for patients with IPF during routine clinic visits. Methods A novel and simple five-item numerical rating scale was developed and compared with two other previously validated tools. 100 consecutive patients with IPF managed at a centre for interstitial lung disease were recruited to complete the Raghu scale for pulmonary fibrosis (R-Scale-PF), King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire (K-BILD), and the EuroQol Five-Dimensional Five-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) in addition to pulmonary function and 6-min walk tests. Measurements and main results All 100 patients successfully completed the three HRQoL tools with 53 completing them again at follow-up visits. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α 0.825) with minimal floor/ceiling effect. Concurrent validity of the R-Scale-PF was moderate to high compared with the K-BILD (r=−0.713) and the EQ-5D-5L (r=−0.665). Concurrent validity was moderate with physiologic measures (forced vital capacity,r=−0.307, 6-min walking distance,r=−0.383). The R-Scale-PF demonstrated good known-groups validity when comparing scores across stages of disease severity. Conclusions The R-Scale-PF correlates well with the K-BILD and EQ-5D-5L. It is hoped that this novel simple numerical rating scale tool, subject to validation in patients from other centres, will provide an opportunity to objectively measure HRQoL in routine clinical practice for patients with IPF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".