MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3209198105 · doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01934-0

Psychometric Evaluation of ITP Life Quality Index (ILQI) in a Global Survey of Patients with Immune Thrombocytopenia

2021· article· en· W3209198105 on OpenAlexaff
Ricardo Viana, Denise D’Alessio, Laura Grant, Nichola Cooper, Donald M. Arnold, Mervyn Morgan, Drew Provan, Adam Cuker, Quentin A. Hill, Yoshiaki Tomiyama, Waleed Ghanima

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Therapy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPlatelet Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNovartis Pharma
KeywordsMedicineImmune thrombocytopeniaRheumatologyQuality of life (healthcare)Index (typography)Internal medicineHealth related quality of lifeImmunologyIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyPlateletDiseaseNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is an autoimmune disorder caused by immunologic destruction of otherwise normal platelets. Patients and physicians differ in their views pertaining to the limitations imposed on patients' daily lives by ITP and its treatment. Poor understanding of ITP symptoms can result in misdiagnosis and complex treatment patterns, and affect patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The ITP Life Quality Index (ILQI) is a 10-item patient-reported outcome measure developed for clinical practice to aid discussions between patients and physicians. This research aimed to validate the psychometric properties of the ILQI using data collected in the ITP World Impact Survey (I-WISh). METHODS: I-WISh data containing responses to the ILQI from 1507 patients with ITP across 13 countries worldwide was subject to psychometric analysis to evaluate the structure, reliability and validity of the ILQI and assess scoring cut-offs. RESULTS: The ILQI has an overarching unidimensional structure, supporting a total score including all 10 items. Reliability was supported (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90). ILQI scores monotonically increased with ITP severity. ILQI scores correlated with measures of fatigue and emotional well-being, supporting construct validity. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses showed that ILQI item responses were interpreted similarly between the USA and other Western countries. It was suggested that previous clinical cut-off score of 20 for "impaired HRQoL" was reduced to 17 and a cut-off of 23-25 (rather than 30) was suggested to assess "significantly impaired HRQoL". CONCLUSION: The validity and reliability of the ILQI to assess HRQoL of patients with ITP is supported. The revised cut-off scores for the ILQI will aid patient-centric decision-making.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in TherapySame topicPlatelet Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207