Development and validation of the self-completed ascites impact measure to understand patient motivation for requesting a paracentesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bruce Crawford,1 Elizabeth Piault,2 Walter Gotlieb,3 Florence Joulain41Mapi Values, Tokyo, Japan; 2Mapi Values, Boston, MA, USA; 3McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 4Sanofi, Paris, FranceBackground: The Ascites Impact Measure (AIM) was developed to record patients' daily experiences of symptoms that trigger a request for a paracentesis.Methods: Development of the AIM followed a rigorous step-wise approach, including a review of the literature, expert opinions, and qualitative research involving patients who experience symptomatic malignant ascites. The AIM's measurement properties were assessed using data from two international trials, including 59 ovarian cancer patients with symptomatic malignant ascites.Results: Following the literature review and expert discussions to develop the conceptual model, ten patients with symptomatic malignant ascites were interviewed in the item elicitation phase, resulting in a draft questionnaire with four questions. Validation analyses consisted of 59 patients pooled from two international trials. Inter-items correlations for the AIM were good (r > 0.60), except for the Pain item. Internal consistency reliability (α = 0.89) improved after removing the Pain item from the Total Symptom score (TSS). Test-retest reliability was sufficient. Scores significantly improved after paracentesis except for the Pain item. Preliminary estimates indicate that a two-point improvement on the three-item TSS (without the Abdominal Pain item) could be interpreted as clinically meaningful.Conclusion: The Abdominal Pain item appears to behave differently than the other three items, and could be more related to cancer. While the validity of the AIM TSS (four-item) is acceptable, removing the Pain item from the TSS scoring algorithm demonstrated better construct validity. In addition, test-retest reliability and responsiveness were found to be similar to the results for the four-item AIM TSS. The Pain item should be used as a supplemental item to the three-item AIM TSS, as it provides additional information about the underlying cancer state.Keywords: ascites impact measure, symptoms, ovarian cancer, paracentesis
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 | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".