MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362521558 · doi:10.1186/s41687-023-00576-w

Content validation and psychometric evaluation of the Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire for hereditary angioedema

2023· article· en· W4362521558 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoagulation, Bradykinin, Polyphosphates, and Angioedema
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShire Human Genetic TherapiesShire
KeywordsCronbach's alphaQuality of life (healthcare)Hereditary angioedemaCognitive interviewIntraclass correlationMedicineClinical psychologyAnxietyContent validityAngioedemaPsychometricsPhysical therapyPsychologyCognitionPsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is considerable burden of illness in hereditary angioedema (HAE). However, instruments to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in HAE are limited. The Angioedema Quality of Life Questionnaire (AE-QoL) was developed to measure HRQoL in patients with recurrent angioedema; the validity of the AE-QoL in patients with HAE is described. METHODS: To identify disease-related experiences with a focus on the impact of HAE on HRQoL, interviews were conducted with a group of clinician experts and patients with HAE from Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, along with a targeted literature review. Concepts were mapped to the AE-QoL to assess item relevance, interpretation, and conceptual coverage. Cognitive interviews assessed item clarity and relevance. A psychometric validation was performed using data from a phase 3 trial. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with seven clinicians and 40 adult patients. Patients reported 35 unique impacts of HAE on their lives, the most frequent being on work/school, social relationships, physical activities, and emotions, particularly fear/worrying and anxiety. Saturation for these impacts was reached, and all concepts covered in the AE-QoL were reported during the interviews. Patients agreed that the questionnaire items and response options were clear and relevant, and the 4-week recall period was appropriate. The psychometric validation included data from 64 patients. For AE-QoL total scores, excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.90), test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient > 0.80), convergent validity with the Sheehan Disability Scale (r = 0.663), divergent validity with the EQ-5D-5L index (r = 0.292) and EQ-VAS (r = 0.337), and known-groups validity (p < 0.0001; ɳ2 = 0.56) were demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative and psychometric analyses showed that the AE-QoL is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring HRQoL in adult patients with HAE from six countries.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.814

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.226 · 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