Measuring what matters: Why and how to include patient reported outcomes in clinical care and research on inborn errors of metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are generally defined as 'any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else'. A broader definition of PRO also includes 'any information on the outcomes of health care obtained directly from patients without modification by clinicians or other health care professionals'. Following this approach, PROs encompass subjective perceptions of patients on how they function or feel not only in relation to a health condition but also to its treatment as well as concepts such as health-related quality of life (HrQoL), information on the functional status of a patient, signs and symptoms and symptom burden. PRO measurement instruments (PROMs) are mostly questionnaires and inform about what patients can do and how they feel. PROs and PROMs have not yet found unconditional acceptance and wide use in the field of inborn errors of metabolism. This review summarises the importance and usefulness of PROs in research, drug legislation and clinical care and informs about quality standards, development, and potential methodological shortfalls of PROMs. Inclusion of PROs measured with high-quality, well-selected PROMs into clinical care, drug legislation, and research helps to identify unmet needs, improve quality of care, and define outcomes that are meaningful to patients. The field of IEM should open to new methodological approaches such as the definition of core sets of variables including PROs to be systematically assessed in specific metabolic conditions and new collaborations with PRO experts, such as psychologists to facilitate the systematic collection of meaningful data.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".