MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404346779 · doi:10.1167/tvst.13.11.16

Patient-Reported Outcomes in <i>RLBP1</i> Retinal Dystrophy: Longitudinal Assessment in a Prospective Natural History Study

2024· article· en· W4404346779 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Vision Science & Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNovartis PharmaEisaiSarepta TherapeuticsBiogen
KeywordsNatural historyNatural history studyMedicineRetinalOphthalmologyOptometryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: To evaluate the performance of two non-disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) and the Low Luminance Questionnaire (LLQ), in patients with retinaldehyde-binding protein 1 retinal dystrophy (RLBP1 RD). Methods: PROs were assessed using the VFQ-25 and LLQ. Rasch analysis was conducted to estimate person and item measures of the VFQ-25 and LLQ questionnaires to determine the association between the two PROs. In addition, the association between these two instruments and their correlations to weighted measures of visual function and disease progression were analyzed in this three-year PRO-focused sub-study of a five-year prospective natural history study. Results: Forty-two patients participated, with most of them having completed at least two PRO follow-up visits at least one year apart. The mean VFQ-25 scores were lowest for distance activities (39.2-49.0) and peripheral vision (37.5-52.4), with mean LLQ subscale scores generally low (<41), except for the emotional distress subscale. Using Rasch analysis, calibrated item and person measures along with their standard errors were estimated for both ePROs. This indicated that the distribution of the VFQ-25 and LLQ item measures well covered the distribution of person function in this group. This suggests that the item difficulties well cover the person-level performance in this population. As well, the two PROs showed a strong and significant correlation at all assessed time points as assessed with Pearson correlation coefficient (0.81, 0.91, 0.81 and 0.87 at baseline, 1/1.5, 2/2.5 (P < 0.001) and 3/3.5 years (P = 0.002)). The composite scores of both PRO questionnaires strongly correlated with clinical measures of visual function. At 2 to 2.5 years of follow-up, meaningful statistically significant declines in peripheral vision (both VFQ-25 and LLQ), distance vision (VFQ-25), and extreme lighting in dark and bright light (LLQ) subscales were noted. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a strong association between VFQ-25 and LLQ scores and their association with clinical measures of visual function. Translational Relevance: PRO instruments can provide insights into the specific disabilities of this unique patient population and help to guide appropriate outcome measures for future clinical trials.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it