Validation of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for the Australian and New Zealand population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Individuals with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) experience severely impaired quality of life. A disease-specific patient reported outcome measure for PAH (the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review—CAMPHOR) has recently been developed and validated in the UK, USA and Canada. It has demonstrated reliability and validity in PAH populations in these countries. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the CAMPHOR in an Australian and New Zealand (NZ) PAH population.\nMethods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a cohort of 15 PAH patients (aged 68.9 ± 10.0 years; 11 women) to determine the relevance of the CAMPHOR and ensure the terminology and language used was understandable and appropriate for our PAH population. The test–retest reliability, internal consistency and construct validity of the CAMPHOR were then examined in an Australian and NZ PAH population (n = 61, aged 56.9 ± 14.5 years; 48 women).\nResults: Data from the patient interviews confirmed that the CAMPHOR is appropriate for use in our PAH population. The three CAMPHOR scales (symptoms, activity limitations and quality of life) had excellent test–retest reliability (correlation coefficients (rs) = 0.86–0.94, P < 0.01) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficients = 0.89–0.92). The CAMPHOR also demonstrated the ability to distinguish between individuals with PAH who differed according to World Health Organisation functional class.\nConclusions: We have shown the CAMPHOR to be valid and reliable in an Australian and NZ PAH population and recommend its use in clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".