Agreement between child- and parent-reported orofacial symptoms in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the agreement between child- and parent-reported orofacial symptoms in the Danish version of the patient questionnaire Assessment of Orofacial Symptoms in Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted at Aarhus University in March 2023. Eligible candidates were consecutive subjects with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) and temporomandibular joint involvement accompanied by a parental proxy for examination in the Craniofacial Clinic. After obtaining written informed consent, the questionnaire was completed individually and separately by the child and the parent without any communication between them. The level of agreement was analysed using Cohen's (weighted) kappa for nominal and ordinal outcome variables (orofacial pain frequency, pain location, jaw function, orofacial symptoms, and changes since last visit) and the intraclass correlation coefficient for linear outcome variables (orofacial pain intensity and functional disability of the jaw). RESULTS: The 34 included dyads had an overall 'poor' to 'moderate' child-proxy reporting agreement on the questionnaire for the assessment of JIA-related orofacial symptoms. After dividing the children into two age groups, < 13 and ≥ 13 years old, we found substantial agreement on pain frequency and moderate to excellent agreement on pain intensity for the older group. The child-proxy agreement for children aged < 13 years was slight on pain frequency and poor to moderate on pain intensity. CONCLUSION: The child-proxy reporting agreement on JIA-related orofacial symptoms is inconsistent. We suggest collecting information from both children and parents, especially when assessing orofacial pain and symptoms in children < 13 years of age.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".