Adaptation of the urticaria patient daily diary for caregiver completion in pediatric chronic spontaneous urticaria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Urticaria Patient Daily Diary (UPDD) assesses patient-reported symptoms (itch, hives, angioedema) and impacts in adults and adolescents with chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). Objective: The objective was to adapt the UPDD for caregiver completion for patients ages 2‐11 years. Methods: To inform modification of the UPDD, two iterative rounds of hybrid concept-elicitation/cognitive-debriefing interviews were conducted with clinical experts and caregivers of children with CSU recruited via patient organizations in the United States and Canada. After concept elicitation, the participants reviewed a draft UPDD‐Caregiver Version with initial modifications for caregiver completion. Data were analyzed by using thematic analysis. Results: Four clinicians and 12 caregivers were interviewed (round 1:4 clinicians, 5 caregivers; round 2:7 caregivers). Key symptoms reported by the caregivers were itch (n = 12), hives (n = 12), and swelling and/or angioedema (n = 7). All four clinicians confirmed itch and hives to be key symptoms in children ages 2‐11 years with CSU, with associated angioedema for some. Scratching was confirmed as the key observable sign of itch. Caregiver-reported impacts included waking in the night (n = 10); difficulty getting to sleep (n = 8); and daily life impacts, including activities at school (n = 10), play (n = 8), with family and/or friends (n = 4), and sports (n = 3). After round 1, minor revisions were made to enhance comprehension of the UPDD‐Caregiver Version, and an overall symptom severity item was added. Relevance, acceptability, and comprehension of the final measure were confirmed by round 2 participants; no further changes were required. Conclusion: The UPDD‐Caregiver Version is a relevant and acceptable measure for caregiver completion to assess symptoms and impacts of CSU in children ages 2‐11 years.
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 | 0.034 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".