Validity and Psychometric Properties of 3 and 4 Visual Analog Scale in Participants With Psoriatic Arthritis Treated With Guselkumab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the validity of the 3-item visual analog scale (3VAS) and 4-item VAS (4VAS) and determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal detectable change (MDC) for each measure using data from 3 phase III randomized clinical trials of guselkumab in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Methods Pooled data (1405 participants) from the DISCOVER-1, DISCOVER-2, and COSMOS studies were used. 3VAS/4VAS MCID and MDC were estimated using established formulas. Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was used to identify 3VAS/4VAS thresholds for low, moderate, and high disease activity. Criterion validity was assessed by correlating 3VAS/4VAS with other PsA measures. Mixed models evaluated the association between changes from baseline in 3VAS/4VAS at week 8 of guselkumab treatment with the total PsA-modified Sharp-van der Heijde (SvdH) score through week 100. Results 3VAS/4VAS showed moderate-to-strong correlation with all outcome measures assessed, with coefficients ranging from 0.56/0.62 for Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index to 0.92/0.94 for patient global assessment. MCID was 0.9 for both 3VAS (range 0.7-1.3 depending on method used) and 4VAS (0.6-1.3); MDC was 3.1 and 3.0, respectively. 3VAS cutoffs for low, moderate, and high disease activity were 2.1, 3.3, and 4.8, respectively, and 2.1, 3.4, and 5.0 for 4VAS. Change in 4VAS at week 8 of guselkumab treatment significantly associated with change in SvdH score through week 100 ( P = 0.04). Conclusion These analyses support the validity of 3VAS/4VAS as multidimensional measures of PsA disease activity. 4VAS may be preferred owing to its greater face validity and separate measurements of the 2 cardinal aspects of PsA (joint/skin disease) and pain.
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 | 0.033 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".