The hf-PGA is a valid and reliable measure of hand/foot psoriasis severity in adults: results from a phase 2b clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to investigate the reliability, validity, and meaningful change scores for the Physician’s Global Assessment of Hands and/or Feet (hf-PGA), a measure of clinician-reported psoriasis severity on the hands/feet. Baseline, Week 8, and Week 16 data were analyzed from adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (n = 99) in a Phase 2b multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study (NCT05223868). The hf-PGA had high test-retest reliability between Weeks 8 and 16 in a clinically stable subgroup (r = 0.94, kappa = 0.85, percent agreement = 95.3%). Regarding validity, hf-PGA cross-sectional and change scores positively correlated with global measures of psoriasis severity (i.e. Investigator’s Global Assessment, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and the Psoriasis Symptom and Sign Diary) and dermatological quality of life (i.e. Dermatology Life Quality Index) as hypothesized; relationships also aligned directionally (i.e. worse hf-PGA severity was associated with worse global severity and greater impact on quality of life). Anchor- and distribution-based analyses supported a hf-PGA change score of −2 as a clinically meaningful improvement. Thus, the hf-PGA demonstrated sufficient reliability, validity, and meaningful change thresholds; it is suitable for use in clinical studies and is fit-for-purpose for evaluating psoriasis severity on the hands/feet.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".