Construct validity of the PROMIS PF-10 in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases and severe limitations in physical functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assessing the construct validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function 10-Item Short Form (PROMIS PF-10) in a subpopulation of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients with severe limitations in physical functioning (PF). METHOD: RA/axSpA patients with severe functional limitations completed the PROMIS PF-10, Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index (HAQ-DI for RA) or Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI for axSpA), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-level (index score, EQ-VAS), and performed the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT). Construct validity was assessed by computing Spearman rank or Pearson correlation coefficients and testing hypotheses about correlations between the PROMIS PF-10 and measures of PF and quality of life. RESULTS: Data from 316 patients (180 RA/136 axSpA, 91.7%/47.8% female, mean ± sd age 58.6 ± 13.2/54.0 ± 11.3 years) were analysed. The median (IQR) PROMIS PF-10 score was 34.5 (31.4-37.6) in RA and 36.0 (32.8-38.3) in axSpA patients. The PROMIS PF-10 correlated strongly with the HAQ-DI, BASFI, and EQ-5D-5L index score (r > 0.6), moderately with the SF-36 Physical Component Summary score, EQ-VAS, and 6MWT (0.30 ≤ r ≤ 0.60), and weakly with the SF-36 Mental Component Summary score (r < 0.30). Five of six hypotheses (83%) were confirmed in both groups. CONCLUSION: The overall strong correlation of the PROMIS PF-10 with measures of PF and moderate to weak correlations with outcomes measuring different constructs were confirmed in subpopulations of RA and axSpA patients with severe functional limitations, supporting its construct validity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".