A qualitative patient interview study to understand the experience of patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
NASH is a potentially progressive form of NAFLD characterized by hepatocyte injury and liver inflammation which can cause fibrosis. Currently, there are limited data on the patient experience of NASH. Our aim was to use both literature review and patient interviews to understand the signs/symptoms and life impacts of NASH fibrosis stages F1-F4 that are important to patients, as well as begin to investigate the applicability of an instrument (ie, questionnaire) that may be used to capture patients' experiences. The literature review identified concepts (signs/symptoms and impacts) related to NASH fibrosis stages F1-F4 and the NASH-specific patient-reported outcome instrument (NASH-CHECK) for reporting patient experience of NASH. Interviews with 22 patients from Canada and the USA with NASH fibrosis stages F1-F4 revealed 27 signs/symptoms and 32 impacts that they felt were important, including fatigue, pain in the abdomen, worry, and frustration. Three concepts reported during patient interviews were not identified in the literature review. No concepts appeared to be exclusive to a specific fibrosis stage or presence/absence of obesity and no linear trends were identified between fibrosis stage or presence/absence of obesity and level of disturbance reported for concepts. The patient interviews supported the concepts included in the NASH-CHECK overall, demonstrating that it could be used to report the patient experience of NASH fibrosis stages F1-F4. Interviews with patients with NASH fibrosis stages F1-F4 revealed patients can self-report and elaborate on signs/symptoms and impacts related to the disease regardless of fibrosis stage. The NASH-CHECK was identified as a suitable instrument that could be used by patients with fibrosis stages F1-F4.
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 | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".