Patient-Reported Outcomes in <i>RLBP1</i> Retinal Dystrophy: Longitudinal Assessment in a Prospective Natural History Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".