Validation of a Novel Clinical Dyspnea Scale – A Retrospective Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: to examine the validity of a novel dyspnea scale, Edmonton Dyspnea Inventory in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Methods: Edmonton Dyspnea Inventory (EDI), is a clinical instrument to measure dyspnea severity with activities of daily living, exercise and rest using a numeric rating scale (0 -10). Consecutive IPF patients (2012-2018) with baseline MRC and EDI were included. To validate EDI, psychometric analysis was conducted. Correlations between EDI, MRC and lung function were examined. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to group patients based on dyspnea severity. Net Reclassification Improvement (NRI) was calculated to assess the improvement in 1-year mortality prediction by adding trajectory groups to MRC grade. Results: 100 consecutive IPF patients were identified; mean age 73 years (SD = 9) and 65% males; 73% were in MRC grades ≥3. Item analysis showed all 8 EDI components have excellent discrimination power with ability to differentiate patients with varying dyspnea severity. EDI has good internal consistency (Cronbach α = .92). Exploratory factor analysis showed a one-factor solution with loadings from .66 to .89 suggesting 8 EDI components measured essentially one dimension of dyspnea. All EDI components were correlated with MRC and some with lung function. Modeling data identified three EDI dyspnea severity groups with differing mortality ( P = .009). The addition of EDI dyspnea severity groups to the MRC score improved 1-year mortality prediction (NRI = .66; 95% CI, .18-1.14). Conclusions: EDI is a valid dyspnea instrument, correlated with MRC and lung function. It can categorize IPF patients into 3 dyspnea severity groups associated with increased mortality. Key Message: We describe the development of a novel scale, Edmonton Dyspnea Inventory, that facilitates measurement of dyspnea severity in the context of daily activities in patients with IPF. The results indicate that the new instrument is valid and correlated to MRC. It identifies 3 categories of severity not recognized by MRC with impact on mortality. Knowledge of dyspnea severity can help triage patients and assign appropriate therapies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".