Validation of the Thai version of the Duke Activity Status Index in patients with a previous myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The Duke Activity Status Index is a widely used instrument for measuring functional status in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, items and subscales on this instrument have not been validated for Thai patients with a previous myocardial infarction (MI). Objective: To test the reliability and validity of the Thai version of the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI-T) in Thai patients with a previous MI using a cross-sectional study design. Methods: The DASI-T was translated using forward and backward translation methods and administered to 100 MI patients from outpatient departments of two general hospitals in Thailand. Internal consistency was determined to test reliability. Two criterion measures (i.e. Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification, SF-36 physical functioning subscale) were used to test the concurrent validity of the DASI-T. Age group and CCS classification were used to determine known-groups validity of the DASI-T. Results: Cronbach’s α for the DASI-T total score was 0.76. No ceiling or floor effect was detected for the DASI-T total score. DASI-T total score was significantly correlated with the CCS classification (r = -0.68, P < 0.01) and SF-36 physical functioning subscale (r = 0.79, P < 0.01). DASI-T total scores could differentiate MI patients based on age (P = 0.040) or CCS classification (P = 0.000). Conclusion: The DASI-T is a potentially reliable and valid instrument with which to assess functional status in MI patients and is also useful to evaluate a treatment effect and be a guideline for clinical purposes (i.e. exercise prescription, risk stratification).
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".