Fatigue rating scales critique and recommendations by the Movement Disorders Society task force on rating scales for Parkinson's disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Fatigue has been shown to be a consistent and common problem in Parkinson's disease (PD) in multiple countries and cultures. It is one of the most disabling of all symptoms, including motor dysfunction, and appears early, often predating the onset of motor symptoms. Several studies of the epidemiology of fatigue have been published, often using different scales, but few on treatment. The Movement Disorder Society (MDS) commissioned a task force to assess available clinical rating scales, critique their psychometric properties, summarize their clinical properties, and evaluate the evidence in support of their use in clinical studies in PD. Six clinical researchers reviewed all studies published in peer reviewed journals of fatigue in PD, evaluated the scales' previous use, performance parameters, and quality of validation data, if available. Scales were rated according to criteria provided by the MDS. A scale was "recommended" if it has been used in clinical studies beyond the group that developed it, has been used in PD and psychometric studies have established that it is a valid, reliable and sensitive to change in people with PD. Requiring a scale to have demonstrated sensitivity to change in PD specifically rather than in other areas in order to attain a rating of "recommended" differs from the use of this term in previous MDS task force scale reviews. "Suggested" scales failed to meet all the criteria of a "recommended" scale, usually the criterion of sensitivity to change in a study of PD. Scales were "listed" if they had been used in PD studies but had little or no psychometric data to assess. Some scales could be used both to screen for fatigue as well as to assess fatigue severity, but some were only used to assess severity. The Fatigue Severity Scale was "recommended" for both screening and severity rating. The Fatigue Assessment Inventory, an expanded version of the Fatigue severity Scale, is "suggested" for both screening and severity. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue was "recommended" for screening and "suggested" for severity. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory was "suggested" for screening and "recommended" for severity. The Parkinson Fatigue Scale was "recommended" for screening and "suggested" for severity rating. The Fatigue Severity Inventory was "listed" for both screening and severity. The Fatigue Impact Scale for Daily Use, an adaptation of the Fatigue Impact Scale was "listed" for screening and "suggested" for severity. Visual Analogue and Global Impression Scales are both "listed" for screening and severity. The committee concluded that current scales are adequate for fatigue studies in PD but that studies on sensitivity and specificity of the scales are still needed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,085 | 0,178 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».