Ulcerative Colitis-Symptom Questionnaire: Valid for Use in Adults with Moderately to Severely Active Ulcerative Colitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to wide-ranging impacts of Ulcerative Colitis (UC), regulatory authorities emphasize the importance of including validated patient-reported symptom severity measures in clinical trials. AIM: To describe the development and validation of the Ulcerative Colitis-Symptom Questionnaire (UC-SQ). METHODS: The UC-SQ was developed in a qualitative study involving a targeted literature review, semi-structured concept elicitation interviews, and combined concept elicitation/cognitive interviews. Measurement properties, including item-level analyses, factor structure, reliability, validity, responsiveness, and clinically meaningful change were evaluated using data from a phase 2b, randomized trial in adults with UC (N = 113). RESULTS: Fourteen symptom concepts were elicited across 22 interviews, with saturation at the fifth interview. Twenty-two items were unmodified as cognitive interview participants interpreted underlying concepts correctly. Instructions were clear and items were relevant, with appropriate response options and recall periods. Reduction to 17 items was completed prior to psychometric testing. Two items (joint pain/constipation) did not contribute to reliability in initial testing and were included as non-scored items. The 15-item UC-SQ showed evidence of internal consistency (α = 0.86) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). The UC-SQ discriminated by disease severity as defined by Mayo and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire scores (p < 0.0001). Convergent validity was supported by strong correlations with criterion measures. The UC-SQ was responsive in patients indicating change in other measures. A 10-point decrease from baseline indicated within-patient meaningful improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The UC-SQ is reliable, valid and responsive, with a 10-point improvement estimating within-patient clinically meaningful improvement. The tool is fit-for-purpose as a key endpoint in pivotal UC trials.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".