The validation of inherited retinal disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures in adolescent patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the validity of the validate the adult patient-reported outcome measure tools, the Michigan Retinal Degeneration Questionnaire (MRDQ) and Michigan Vision-Related Anxiety Questionnaire (MVAQ), in adolescent patients with inherited retinal diseases (IRDs). Ninety-one adolescent patients diagnosed with IRDs were recruited at the Hospital for Sick Children (University of Toronto) and the Kellogg Eye Center (University of Michigan). The patients were administered the MRDQ, MVAQ, and Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). Test-retest variability was assessed in eighteen patients within 14 days of the initial administration. Adolescent responses were analyzed for validity and reliability. As a further validation step, comparisons were made to adult data from the original MRDQ and MVAQ studies to ensure consistency in response ranges. The existing MRDQ and MVAQ content and format could accurately detect the impact of IRD on activities of daily living in adolescents with IRDs. No floor/ceiling effects were identified, test-retest reliability was established (r = 0.73–0.86), and no items were excluded after differential item functioning analysis. Domain and trait associations with visual acuity and IRD phenotypes were similar between adolescents and adults. The MRDQ and MVAQ are psychometrically validated questionnaires for which we have shown validity for use in adolescent patients with IRDs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".