Confirmatory analysis of the 13‐MD and ranking of its meta‐dimensions and items
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The 13-MD is a new generic instrument developed to measure general health-related quality of life (GHRQoL). This instrument considers all aspects of health (i.e., physical, mental, and social) in a balanced way. A previous study led to minor changes in the original version of the 13-MD. The objective of this study was to confirm the validity of the modified 13-MD. Methods: Validity was assessed with recent data from the general population of Quebec, Canada. The meta-dimensions and items composing the 13-MD were also subjected to a ranking procedure, which allowed to determine the most important aspects for respondents. Results: A total of 1337 French-speaking participants were recruited with 1099 completing the 13-MD for validation purposes and 1084 completing the ranking procedure. The 13-MD showed very satisfactory results and confirmed to be a valid instrument. The ranking of the meta-dimensions revealed that "Well-being" received the most points, followed by "Sleep and energy" and "Body functioning." Conclusion: These results will be very useful in the continuous improvement of the 13-MD, ultimately leading to the valuation stage (i.e., development of a value set).
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 | 0.168 | 0.340 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".