Assessment of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire for use in patients after neck dissection for head and neck cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In this cross-sectional study, the sensibility, test-retest reliability, and validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire were assessed in patients who underwent neck dissection. METHODS: Sensibility was assessed with a questionnaire. Test-retest reliability was performed with completion of the DASH questionnaire 2 weeks after initial completion; validity, by evaluating differences in scores between patients undergoing different types of neck dissections and correlating DASH scores with Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII) scores. RESULTS: The DASH questionnaire met sensibility criteria. For test-retest reliability analysis, the intraclass coefficient was 0.91. The DASH questionnaire showed differences between patients who underwent accessory nerve-sacrifice and nerve-sparing neck dissection. DASH questionnaire scores strongly correlated with NDII scores (r = -0.86). CONCLUSION: Although this study provides preliminary data on some psychometric properties of the DASH questionnaire in patients who have undergone a neck dissection, further assessment of responsiveness and other properties are required.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".