Validity and sensitivity to change of the Patient Specific Functional Scale used during rehabilitation following proximal humeral fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe content validity, concurrent validity, sensitivity to change, internal consistency and the outcome distribution of the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with proximal humeral fracture. METHOD: Fifty-three patients with proximal humeral fracture treated conservatively or surgically with plate and screw or intramedullary nail were recruited 6 weeks (±1 week) post-trauma or post-surgery. The following assessments were used: the PSFS, patient global score, shoulder function assessment, grip strength and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the shoulder Index (WOOS), before start of (n = 53) and after (n = 22) 2-3 months of group rehabilitation. RESULTS: In total, 96% of the activities stated in the PSFS was classified in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health activity component and 62% were found in the WOOS. Correlations between measures were low. The PSFS was highly sensitive to change to a period of group rehabilitation. All questions of the PSFS contributed to the total score. Both floor and ceiling effects could be noted. CONCLUSION: The PSFS shows satisfying measurement properties and may be a useful complement in the evaluation of individual changes during a period of rehabilitation after proximal humeral fracture. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: The PSFS assesses on activity level in patients with proximal humeral fracture. The PSFS is sensitive to change for group rehabilitation after humeral fracture. The PSFS can be useful for goal-setting, motivating and individually tailoring rehabilitation activities. The PSFS should be used in addition to specific measures of body functions and general health.
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 | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".