Development of Novel Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) and Observer-Reported Outcome (ObsRO) Instruments in Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) and Leber Congenital Amaurosis (LCA): ViSIO-PRO and ViSIO-ObsRO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) are rare inherited retinal degenerative disorders resulting in visual impairments and impacts on patients' vision-dependent activities of daily living (ADL), mobility and distal health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to conduct qualitative research to understand the patient experience of RP/LCA across genotypes and inform development of patient- and observer-reported outcome (PRO/ObsRO) instruments in RP/LCA. METHODS: Research activities included a qualitative literature review and review of existing visual function PRO instruments in RLBP1 RP, and concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews of existing PRO instruments with patients with RLBP1 RP, expert clinicians, and payers. In wider RP/LCA, a social media listening (SML) study and a qualitative literature review was conducted, while psychometric evaluation of a PRO instrument in LCA was performed. Input from expert clinicians was sought at key stages. RESULTS: Findings from the qualitative literature reviews identified a range of visual function symptoms which had significant impacts on patients' vision-related ADL and distal HRQoL. Patient interviews identified additional visual function symptoms and impacts not previously reported in published literature. These sources informed development and refinement of a conceptual model displaying the patient experience of RP/LCA. Review of existing visual function PRO instruments, and CD interviews evaluating their content validity, confirmed that no existing instrument provides a comprehensive assessment of all concepts relevant to patients with RP/LCA. This highlighted the need for development of the Visual Symptom and Impact Outcomes PRO and ObsRO instruments to adequately assess the patient experience of RP/LCA. CONCLUSIONS: Results informed and supported development of the instruments to assess visual functioning symptoms and vision-dependent ADL, mobility and distal HRQoL in RP/LCA, in accordance with regulatory standards. Next steps to further support use in RP/LCA clinical trials/practice includes content and psychometric validation of the instruments in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".