Comparing the MSIS-29 and the Health Utilities Index Mark III in Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Since the properties of health-related quality of life measures vary across samples, studies directly comparing the properties of different measures can be useful in understanding their relative strengths and limitations. We aimed to compare the psychometric properties of the Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI3) and the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29). Methods: In Spring 2020, North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry participants completed the HUI3, MSIS-29, Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) and SymptoMScreen. For the HUI3 and MSIS-29 we assessed floor and ceiling effects, construct validity, and internal consistency reliability. We used relative efficiency to compare the discriminating ability of the two measures with respect to disability. Results: We included 5,664 participants in the analysis, with mean (SD) age 63 (10.1) years; 4,579 (80.8%) were women. For the HUI3 the mean (SD) score was 0.44 (0.32), for the MSIS-29 physical it was 34.0 (24.2) and for the MSIS-29 psychological it was 25.9 (20.4). Neither of the measures had floor or ceiling effects, and internal consistency reliability was > 0.70 for both. The HUI3 and MSIS-29 physical were strongly correlated (r = −0.78; 95%CI:−0.79,−0.77). The correlation between the HUI3 and MSIS-29 psychological was weaker but remained moderately strong (r = −0.64; 95%CI:−0.66,−0.63). After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors, relative efficiency to discriminate between disability (PDDS) groups was highest for the MSIS-29 physical scale, followed by the HUI3. Conclusion: Both measures had adequate validity and reliability. The MSIS-29 physical discriminated between disability groups better than the HUI3.
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 | 0.018 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".