MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310215607 · doi:10.1007/s11136-022-03257-1

29th Annual Conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Research

2022· article· en· W4310215607 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality of Life Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfUniversiteit LeidenLeids Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversity of TorontoUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillFeinberg School of MedicineCardiff UniversityHealth and Care Research WalesNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Cancer Research InstituteMcGill UniversityNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNorthwestern University
KeywordsPromMetric (unit)StatisticsItem response theoryLatent variableVariable (mathematics)Latent variable modelBaseline (sea)Structural equation modelingEquatingPsychologyPopulationQuality of life (healthcare)Longitudinal studyMathematicsEconometricsPsychometricsDemographyMedicineRasch model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: The minimal important change (MIC) is loosely defined as the smallest change in a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) score that patients value as important. Anchor-based methods using an external criterion reflecting the patients' perspective are preferred to estimate MICs. A popular anchor is the 1-item transition rating (TR). A TR requires patients to compare their perceived change with internal thresholds for e.g. ''a little better'' and ''much better''. The target MIC (for improvement) to be estimated is the mean of the individual thresholds between TR categories ''the same'' and ''a little better''. This MIC value can be estimated using longitudinal IRT (LIRT; Bjorner et al., under review). The current study aims to demonstrate that longitudinal structural equation modeling (LSEM) can do same job. Methods: We used simulations to be able to control the true MIC value (i.e., the population value of the mean threshold between ''the same'' and ''a little better''). We used IRT to simulate baseline and follow-up datasets for a hypothetical 10-item PROM. We created a perceived change variable by adding (measurement) error to the latent change variable. Furthermore, a variable of thresholds between ''the same'' and ''a little better'' (with a mean of 0.5 theta change) was created. So, the true MIC in the theta metric was 0.5. TR responses were simulated by comparing the perceived change with the thresholds. The simulated samples were varied with respect to the mean baseline score, the mean change score, and other characteristics. The LSEM-model used to estimate the MIC is shown in Fig. The MIC in terms of theta change is sTR/kTR2 where sTR represents the TR threshold between ''the same'' and ''a little better''. Results: Across 108 simulated samples the mean MIC (in terms of theta change) was 0.50 (95% CI 0.37, 0.61). For comparison the same MIC based on LIRT was 0.51 (95% CI 0.37, 0.62). The MIC was not affected by the proportion of improved patients, nor by any other sample characteristic. The LSEM estimations took considerably less time than the LIRT estimations. Conclusion: The true MIC can be accurately recovered using LSEM.

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)0.248
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2480.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.866
GPT teacher head0.608
Teacher spread0.258 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality of Life ResearchSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207