Clinimetric properties of the diagnostic criteria for psychosomatic research among the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Among the elderly, the availability of tool assessing psychosomatic syndromes is limited. The present study aims at testing inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the semi-structured interview for the Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research (DCPR-R-SSI) in the elderly of the general population. METHOD: One hundred eight subjects were recruited. Participants received a clinical assessment which included the DCPR-R-SSI, the Illness Attitude Scale (IAS), the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), the Psychosocial Index (PSI), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20). Analyses of inter-rater reliability of DCPR-R-SSI and concurrent validity between DCPR-R-SSI and self-administered questionnaires were conducted. RESULTS: DCPR-R-SSI showed excellent inter-rater reliability with a percent of agreement of 90.7% (K Cohen: 0.856 [SE = 0.043], 95% CI: 0.77-0.94). DCPR-R demoralization showed fair concurrent validity with GDS; concurrent validity was also fair between DCPR-R Alexithymia and TAS-20, and between DCPR-R allostatic overload and PSI allostatic load, while the concurrent validity between DCPR-R Disease Phobia and IAS was moderate. CONCLUSION: DCPR-R-SSI represents a reliable and valid tool to assess psychosomatic syndromes in the elderly. DCPR-R is in need of being implemented in the elderly clinical evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".