Performance of PROMIS Global-10 Compared With Legacy Instruments for Rotator Cuff Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 was recently developed to assess physical and mental health and provide an estimated EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) score. This instrument needs to be validated for specific patient cohorts such as those with rotator cuff pathology.Hypothesis:There is moderate to high correlation between the PROMIS Global-10 and legacy patient-reported outcome measures; PROMIS Global-10 will not show ceiling effects; and estimated EQ-5D scores will show good correlation and low variance with actual EQ-5D scores.Study Design:Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A total of 323 patients with rotator cuff disease were prospectively enrolled before treatment. Each patient completed the PROMIS Global-10, EQ-5D, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder assessment form, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and those with known rotator cuff tears completed the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC). Spearman correlations were calculated. Bland-Altman agreement tests were conducted between estimated EQ-5D scores from the PROMIS and actual EQ-5D scores. Ceiling and floor effects were assessed, defined as ≥15% respondents with highest or lowest possible score.Results:Correlation between the PROMIS Global-10 and EQ-5D was excellent (0.70, P < .0001). Correlation of the PROMIS physical scores was excellent-good with the ASES (0.62, P < .0001), good with the WORC (0.47, P < .0001), and good with the SANE (0.41, P < .0005). Correlation between the PROMIS mental scores was poor with the ASES (0.34, P < .0001), the WORC (0.32, P = .0016), and the SANE (0.24, P < .0001). No floor or ceiling effects were found. Agreement analysis showed substantial variance in individual scores, despite the overall similarity in mean scores between the estimated and actual EQ-5D scores, indicating poor agreement. Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement for estimated EQ-5D scores ranged from 34% below to 31% above actual EQ-5D scores.Conclusion:Physical function scores of the PROMIS Global-10 show high correlation with legacy patient-reported outcome instruments, suggesting that it is a reliable tool for outcome assessment in a population with rotator cuff pathology. The large variability in 95% limit of agreement suggested that the estimated EQ-5D scores from the PROMIS Global-10 cannot replace traditional EQ-5D scores.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".