Assessment of Orofacial Symptoms in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Validation of a Consensus-Based Short Patient Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop, validate, and test the performance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a short patient questionnaire (< 5 minutes in length) in order to assess the multidimensional aspects of orofacial symptoms related to juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) among patients aged ≥ 10 years. METHODS: The study was conducted by an interdisciplinary task force from the Temporomandibular Joint Juvenile Arthritis Working Group. The project consisted of a multiphased approach including the following: (1) conceptual phase with online international survey of 167 healthcare workers, (2) item generation and drafting of preliminary questionnaire(s) (ie, face validity), (3) cognitive script interview and probing (ie, content validity; 16 patients with JIA), (4) assessment of construct validity (ie, convergence and divergence; 53 patients with JIA), (5) test of reliability, and (6) test of clinical performance and psychometric characteristics (95 patients with JIA). RESULTS: In total, 7 PROs were included in the final patient questionnaire: (1) pain frequency, (2) pain intensity, (3) pain location, (4) jaw function, (5) specific questions related to symptoms and dysfunction, (6) changes in face and jaw pain since last visit, and (7) changes in jaw function since last visit. In total, 80% of the patients were able to complete the questionnaire in less than 5 minutes. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a short patient questionnaire to assess the multidimensional aspects of JIA-related orofacial symptoms. The PROs included in our questionnaire show acceptable validity and reliability. The questionnaire is applicable to routine monitoring of subjects with JIA, as well as future research studies.
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".