Psychometric Results of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Uveal Melanoma Post-Brachytherapy Treatment: The PROM-UM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of a new patient-reported outcome instrument intended for use with patients who have undergone brachytherapy for uveal melanoma (PROM-UM). Classical test theory and item response theory were used to evaluate the performance of individual items and domains. A convenience sample of 439 participants who had undergone brachytherapy for uveal melanoma from one of three North American ocular oncology treatment centers were included in this cross-sectional study. Exploratory factor analysis identified three domains which were labelled "Symptom Impairment", "Worry", and "Discomfort". The acceptability of the instrument was supported by little missing data (range = 0.00-1.14%) and low maximum endorsement (range = 0.00-1.82%). Item-total (range = 0.68-0.85) and inter-item (range = 0.74-0.80) correlations indicated acceptable reliability. Discrimination and difficulty were assessed using item response theory. Items in all three domains indicated moderate to very high discrimination (range = 1.00-4.10). Two items in the Symptom Impairment domain were too difficult to measure. Response ranges in the other two domains demonstrated acceptable difficulty. These results from the study indicate that this new patient-reported outcome instrument can be used with patients treated with brachytherapy for uveal melanoma. Providers could use this instrument to help inform post-treatment management.
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 | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".