Development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures for platysma prominence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Platysma prominence (PP) is characterized by vertical bands along the length of the neck and blunting of the jawline, impacting aesthetic appearance. No validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are available to assess patient experiences specific to PP.Objective Develop and validate fit-for-purpose PRO measures that capture patient experiences with PP and treatment outcomes.Methods PRO measures were developed and validated in alignment with the FDA’s patient-focused drug development guidance. Three interviews (concept elicitation [CE], N = 30; cognitive debriefing [CD] round 1, N = 20; round 2, N = 5) were conducted with treatment-naive and previously treated adults with PP. Instruments were drafted based on concepts emerging from CE interviews. Psychometric testing for reliability and validity was conducted using phase 2 PP treatment study (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03915067) data (N = 164). While there were no available gold standard measures, convergent and known-groups validity were assessed using multiple FACE-Q modules, the Participant Global Impression of Severity (PGIS)-Jawline, and the Participant Global Impression of Treatment Satisfaction (PGI-TS). The 2-way random intraclass correlation coefficient ICC (2,1) and Rλ were calculated to evaluate test-retest reliability. Values of ≥0.70 were considered success for both the ICC(2,1) and Rλ. Spearman correlations (𝜌) between scores from draft instruments and co-validators were used to assess convergent validity (|𝜌|≥0.40). Additionally, internal consistency reliability was examined for multi-item measures where Cronbach’s α ≥ 0.70 was considered success.Results “Bands” or a variation (eg, cords, ridges, lines) were the most common terms used to describe PP, reported by 50% of participants. The most frequently reported psychosocial impacts were looking older than desired (n = 28, 93.3%), feeling self-conscious (n = 24, 80.0%), feeling less attractive (n = 20, 66.7%), and looking less attractive and dressing differently (both: n = 19, 63.3%). Reduced platysma band prominence was the most cited change that would increase satisfaction (n = 15, 50.0%). Following CE interviews, 3 PRO measures were drafted: Appearance of Neck and Lower Face Questionnaire (ANLFQ): Impacts, ANLFQ: Satisfaction (Baseline/Follow-up), and the BAS-PP. CD interviews indicated that participants found the questionnaires understandable and relevant. In psychometric testing, established criteria for reliability and validity were predominantly met, with some exceptions. Three correlations were under the 0.40 threshold, and while these correlations were all in the expected direction, their smaller magnitudes were not unexpected given the restricted conceptual alignment between the PP PROs and co-validating measures.Conclusion These PRO measures demonstrated content and psychometric validity and are ready for use in research and practice to better understand the impact of PP from the patient perspective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".