Patient-reported, health economic and psychosocial outcomes in patients with Friedreich ataxia (PROFA): protocol of an observational study using momentary data assessments via mobile health app
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Friedreich ataxia (FA) is the most common hereditary ataxia in Europe, characterised by progressively worsening movement and speech impairments with a typical onset before the age of 25 years. The symptoms affect the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychosocial health. FA leads to an increasing need for care, associated with an economic burden. Little is known about the impact of FA on daily lives and HRQoL. To fill that gap, we will assess patient-reported, psychosocial and economic outcomes using momentary data assessment via a mobile health application (app). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PROFA Study is a prospective observational study. Patients with FA (n=200) will be recruited at six European study centres (Germany, France and Austria). We will interview patients at baseline in the study centre and subsequently assess the patients' health at home via mobile health app. Patients will self-report ataxia severity, HRQoL, speech and hearing disabilities, coping strategies and well-being, health services usage, adverse health events and productivity losses due to informal care on a daily to monthly basis on the app for 6 months. Our study aims to (1) validate measurements of HRQoL and psychosocial health, (2) assess the usability of the mobile health app, and (3) use descriptive and multivariate statistics to analyse patient-reported and economic outcomes and the interaction effects between these outcomes. Insights into the app's usability could be used for future studies using momentary data assessments to measure outcomes of patients with FA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University Medicine of Greifswald, (BB096/22a, 26 October 2022) and from all local ethics committees of the participating study sites. Findings of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at relevant international/national congresses and disseminated to German and French Patient Advocacy Organizations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05943002); Pre-results.
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 | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".