Recommended measurement instruments for menopausal vasomotor symptoms: the COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to identify suitable definitions and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess each of the six core outcomes previously identified through the COMMA (Core Outcomes in Menopause) global consensus process relating to vasomotor symptoms: frequency, severity, distress/bother/interference, impact on sleep, satisfaction with treatment, and side effects. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant definitions for the outcome of side-effects and PROMs with acceptable measurement properties for the remaining five core outcomes. The consensus process, involving 36 participants from 16 countries, was conducted to review definitions and PROMs and make final recommendations for the measurement of each core outcome. RESULTS: A total of 21,207 publications were screened from which 119 reporting on 40 PROMs were identified. Of these 40 PROMs, 36 either did not adequately map onto the core outcomes or lacked sufficient measurement properties. Therefore, only four PROMs corresponding to two of the six core outcomes were considered for recommendation. We recommend the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale to measure the domain of distress, bother, or interference of vasomotor symptoms and to capture impact on sleep (one item in the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale captures interference with sleep). Six definitions of "side effects" were identified and considered. We recommend that all trials report adverse events, which is a requirement of Good Clinical Practice. CONCLUSIONS: We identified suitable definitions and PROMs for only three of the six core outcomes. No suitable PROMs were found for the remaining three outcomes (frequency and severity of vasomotor symptoms and satisfaction with treatment). Future studies should develop and validate PROMs for these outcomes.
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 | 0.216 | 0.374 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".