Validation of the <scp>PROMIS</scp> Global Physical and Mental Health Scale for Gastrointestinal Disorders: A Large‐Scale Cross‐Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) global health scales are frequently used to assess individual quality of life, it has yet to be validated in gastrointestinal cohorts. Based on the Rome Foundation Global Epidemiology Survey, the aim of this study was to conduct the most comprehensive psychometric evaluation of the PROMIS health scales (8-item and revised 4-item) across gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal condition cohorts. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 26 countries. A series of confirmatory factor and reliability analyses were undertaken across gastrointestinal condition groups, that is, Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction (DGBI) [any DGBI, individual DGBI, and DGBI anatomic region], gastroesophageal reflux disease, chronic constipation, chronic diarrhea, coeliac disease, diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease, cancer anywhere in the gastrointestinal tract, and peptic ulcer and a non-gastrointestinal condition group. Convergent validity was also assessed via a series of Pearson's correlation coefficients with PHQ-4 (anxiety and depression) and PHQ-12 (somatization). RESULTS: Based on 54,040 participants (50.9% male; mean age 44.33 years) confirmatory factor analysis indicated a poor fit for the original Hays et al. 4-item version of the PROMIS global health scale. The briefer version 2-factor 2-item model (the Rome alternate model) yielded acceptable fit across all groups. The Hays 2-factor 2-item model subscales also demonstrated strong convergent, content, and construct validity with original PROMIS global health scale subscales across all groups and DGBI regions and across anxiety, depression, and somatization. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The 4-item revised version of the Hays model of the PROMIS global health scale demonstrates stronger psychometric properties compared to the original Hays model. This ultra-brief assessment instrument is a viable tool for assessing quality of life in gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cohorts.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".