MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409146806 · doi:10.1093/bjd/ljaf127

Measurement properties of the Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Measure for Acne (CompAQ): a cohort study at three international sites

2025· article· en· W4409146806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael R. Nock, Delaney Griffiths, Ali Shields, Karen Michael, Nuha Nasir, Jaefer Mohamad, James Choe, Delwyn Zhi Jie Lim, Alison Layton, Jerry Tan, Hazel H. Oon, John S. Barbieri

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
Canadian institutionsWindsor Clinical ResearchBrock UniversityWestern University
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthAustralian College of Perioperative Nurses
KeywordsConstruct validityCronbach's alphaMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)CohortCohort studyDifferential item functioningClinical psychologyConfirmatory factor analysisCriterion validityAcneConvergent validityPsychometricsItem response theoryInternal consistencyStructural equation modelingInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Measure for Acne (CompAQ) is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with acne. The measure is one of two acne-specific PROMs that had the strongest evidence to support its use in a recent COSMIN systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To build on prior validation studies of CompAQ by confirming several of its known measurement properties in a cohort of patients with acne at three international sites; and, to establish the responsiveness of the measure during acne treatment. METHODS: Adults being seen for routine acne treatment at dermatology clinics in Canada, the USA and Singapore were recruited between July 2022 and September 2024 to participate in this cohort study. At each visit, participants completed the CompAQ, which consists of 20 items representing five domains (i.e. emotions, social judgement, social interaction, treatment and symptoms domains) and several other relevant measures. Structural validity was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis, internal consistency by calculating Cronbach's α values, and construct validity by known groups and convergent validity hypothesis testing. We further evaluated for differential item functioning (DIF) across study site, sex and age. In addition, we assessed responsiveness by change-score validity hypothesis testing and calculating standardized response means (SRMs). RESULTS: Our study included 315 participants [mean (SD) age 25.2 (6.1) years; 219 (69.7%) women] and data were collected from a total of 588 visits. The CompAQ was found to have sufficient structural validity, internal consistency and construct validity among patients at each study site and in the combined cohort. In addition, no statistically significant uniform or nonuniform DIF was flagged for most items when analysing DIF by site, sex and age. Based on SRM estimates, the emotions (SRM 0.927) and symptoms (0.914) domains had the largest responsiveness, while the social judgement (0.606), social interaction (0.522) and treatment (0.787) domains had more moderate responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: CompAQ represents a useful and responsive PROM to evaluate HRQoL among those with acne in clinical trials and clinical practice. Future studies are needed to evaluate the interpretability of the measure (i.e. identifying severity strata and minimally important differences).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of DermatologySame topicAcne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsFrench-language works237,207