Recommendations for assessing appearance concerns related to plexiform and cutaneous neurofibromas in neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Individuals with neurofibromatosis 1 may experience changes in their appearance due to physical manifestations of the disorders and/or treatment sequelae. Appearance concerns related to these physical changes can lead to psychological distress and poorer quality of life. While many neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials focus on assessing changes in tumor volume, evaluating patients' perspectives on corresponding changes in symptoms such as physical appearance can be key secondary outcomes. We aimed to determine whether any existing patient-reported outcome measures are appropriate for evaluating changes in appearance concerns within neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials. METHODS: After updating our previously published systematic review process, we used it to identify and rate existing patient-reported outcome measures related to disfigurement and appearance. Using a systematic literature search and initial triage process, we focused on identifying patient-reported outcome measures that could be used to evaluate changes in appearance concerns in plexiform or cutaneous neurofibroma clinical trials in neurofibromatosis 1. Our revised Patient-Reported Outcome Rating and Acceptance Tool for Endpoints then was used to evaluate each published patient-reported outcome measures in five domains, including (1) respondent characteristics, (2) content validity, (3) scoring format and interpretability, (4) psychometric data, and (5) feasibility. The highest-rated patient-reported outcome measures were then re-reviewed in a side-by-side comparison to generate a final consensus recommendation. RESULTS: Eleven measures assessing appearance concerns were reviewed and rated; no measures were explicitly designed to assess appearance concerns related to neurofibromatosis 1. The FACE-Q Craniofacial Module-Appearance Distress scale was the top-rated measure for potential use in neurofibromatosis 1 clinical trials. Strengths of the measure included that it was rigorously developed, included individuals with neurofibromatosis 1 in the validation sample, was applicable to children and adults, covered item topics deemed important by neurofibromatosis 1 patient representatives, exhibited good psychometric properties, and was feasible for use in neurofibromatosis 1 trials. Limitations included a lack of validation in older adults, no published information regarding sensitivity to change in clinical trials, and limited availability in languages other than English. CONCLUSION: The Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis patient-reported outcome working group currently recommends the FACE-Q Craniofacial Module Appearance Distress scale to evaluate patient-reported changes in appearance concerns in clinical trials for neurofibromatosis 1-related plexiform or cutaneous neurofibromas. Additional research is needed to validate this measure in people with neurofibromatosis 1, including older adults and those with tumors in various body locations, and explore the effects of nontumor manifestations on appearance concerns in people with neurofibromatosis 1 and schwannomatosis.
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 | 0.298 | 0.592 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".