Determining the minimally clinically important difference for the pediatric liver transplant quality of life questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Pediatric Liver Transplant Quality of Life (PeLTQL) questionnaire is a disease-specific patient reported outcome measure for pediatric liver transplant (LT) recipients. To-date, threshold values above which a change in PeLTQL score is considered meaningful to patients are unavailable. This study proposes the first values for the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the PeLTQL. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, anchor and distribution-based methods were used to estimate the MCID for the PeLTQL. Questionnaires completed between March 2013, and July 2022 were included if data from two sequential visits were available. An internal anchor question was used for anchor-based determination of the MCID. A final MCID estimate was ascertained from triangulation of all methods. RESULTS: PeLTQL data from 65 LT recipients (26 [40%] male, 17 [42%] biliary atresia, median age at LT 3.08 years [interquartile range 0.99-7.30]), and their caregivers were included for analysis. Median patient age at time of baseline PeLTQL completion was 13.84 (10.90-15.86) years. The MCID for self-PeLTQL total scores ranged from 4.53 to 8.46, and from 4.47 to 8.85 for proxy responses. By triangulation, the MCID of the PeLTQL total score was 6.45 and 6.78 for self and proxy responses respectively. CONCLUSION: A change in PeLTQL score of 6.5 or more points suggests a change in health status that is meaningful to the patient, providing the clinical team an opportunity to engage the patient's voice in reassessing current health status and management strategies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".