Independent Validation of a Self-Report Version of the IBD Disability Index (IBDDI) in a Population-Based Cohort of IBD Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new clinician-administered inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Disability Index (IBDDI) was recently developed and validated among a population in France. We aimed to validate the IBDDI in a North American setting and adapt for use as a self-report tool. Persons 18–65 years old from the population-based University of Manitoba IBD Research Registry were mailed a self-administered survey. This survey included the IBDDI and several scales that should correlate with a disability measure— the World Health Organization (WHO) Disability Assessment Scale (WHODAS) 2.0, Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ), and the K6—Kessler Emotional Distress Scale. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to assess construct validity, Cronbach’s alpha to assess internal consistency, and Factor analysis to assess which of the IBDDI items likely belonged to a single IBD-related disability factor. In response to the survey request,1143 (46% of those contacted) participated (61% female, mean age 51, 52% with Crohn’s disease). On an index scale from 0–100, 14% had a score ≥50 (extreme disability, 18% of those with Crohn’s disease; 10% of those with ulcerative colitis). There were strong correlations between IBDDI and WSAS (0.76), WHODAS (0.76), K6 (0.73), and an inverse correlation with IBDQ (-0.86). The Cronbach’s alpha was high (0.88). All but 2 items (number of liquid stools in the past week and arthritis/arthralgia) of the 14 identified for IBDDI loaded highly onto a single factor (factor loading > 0.40). The findings support the validity of this new self-report version of the IBDDI as a sound measure of disability in IBD.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".