MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322620768 · doi:10.1111/jdv.18999

Psychometric validation of the generalized pustular psoriasis physician global assessment (<scp>GPPGA</scp>) and generalized pustular psoriasis area and severity index (<scp>GPPASI</scp>)

2023· article· en· W4322620768 on OpenAlexaff
A. David Burden, Robert Bissonnette, Mark Lebwohl, Tristan Gloede, Milena Anatchkova, Ismail Budhiarso, Na Hu, Christian Thoma, Anne Skalicky, H. Bachelez

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicPsoriasis: Treatment and Pathogenesis
Canadian institutionsInnovaderm (Canada)
FundersLEO PharmaPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationConvergent validityConfirmatory factor analysisGeneralized pustular psoriasisPsoriasisReliability (semiconductor)Severity of illnessCorrelationInternal medicinePsychometricsPhysical therapyDermatologyClinical psychologyInternal consistencyStatisticsStructural equation modeling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare and life-threatening skin disease often accompanied by systemic inflammation. There are currently no standardized or validated GPP-specific measures for assessing severity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, validity and responder definitions of the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) and Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (GPPASI). METHODS: The GPPGA and GPPASI were validated using outcome data from Week 1 of the Effisayil™ 1 study. The psychometric analyses performed included confirmatory factor analysis, item-to-item/item-to-total correlations, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness analysis and responder definition analysis. RESULTS: Using data from this patient cohort (N = 53), confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated unidimensionality of the GPPGA total score (root mean square error of approximation <0.08), and GPPGA item-to-item and item-to-total correlations ranged from 0.58 to 0.90. The GPPGA total score, pustulation subscore and GPPASI total score all demonstrated good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70, 0.91 and 0.95 respectively), and good evidence of convergent validity. In anchor-based analyses, all three scores were able to detect changes in symptom and disease severity over time; reductions of -1.4, -2.2 and - 12.0 were suggested as clinically meaningful improvement thresholds for the GPPGA total score, GPPGA pustulation subscore and GPPASI total score respectively. Anchor-based analyses also supported the GPPASI 50 as a clinically meaningful threshold for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings indicate that the GPPGA and GPPASI are valid, reliable and responsive measures for the assessment of GPP disease severity, and support their use in informing clinical endpoints in trials in GPP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologySame topicPsoriasis: Treatment and PathogenesisFrench-language works237,207