Validation of the IBD-Disk in a Portuguese cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate the IBD-Disk in a Portuguese cohort according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of the health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) recommendations. METHODS: After translation of the original IBD-Disk to Portuguese, a group of IBD patients was invited to complete the IBD-Disk at baseline (T0), after 1-4 weeks (T1) and after more than 3 months (T2), from July 2020 to February 2021. At T0 and T2, the patients also completed the IBD Disability Index. We evaluated reliability (internal consistency, test-retest, interrater reliability and measurement error), construct validity, responsiveness, interpretability of IBD-Disk, sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with IBD-Disk. RESULTS: At T0, 154 patients (107 - Crohn's disease; 46 - ulcerative colitis) completed the IBD-Disk; 1 - IBD-unclassified). At T1 and T2, 64 and 114 patients repeated the questionnaire, respectively. Factor analysis confirmed the unidimensionality of the scale and reduced the final version to 10 items. Internal consistency was excellent with a Cronbach's α of 0.916. The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.95 for test-retest (T0 and T1). To evaluate construct validity, the IBD-Disk was compared with the IBD Disability Index and Manitoba IBD Index with a significative positive correlation (r = 0.850 and r = 0.459, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). IBD-Disk scores ranged from 0 to 93 with a mean of 38.18 ± 25.39. Female sex, professional inactivity, longer IBD duration and clinical activity were associated with significantly higher IBD-Disk scores. CONCLUSION: The Portuguese version of IBD-Disk is a reliable and valid tool to assess disability in Portuguese IBD patients.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".