A critical exploration of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework from the perspective of oncology: recommendations for revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2001, the World Health Organization developed the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework in an effort to attend to the multidimensional health-related concerns of individuals. Historically, although the ICF has frequently been used in a rehabilitation-based context, the World Health Organization has positioned it as a universal framework of health and its related states. Consequently, the ICF has been utilized for a diverse array of purposes in the field of oncology, including: evaluating functioning in individuals with cancer, guiding assessment in oncology rehabilitation, assessing the comprehensiveness of outcome measures utilized in oncology research, assisting in health-related quality of life instrument selection, and comparing the primary concerns of health professionals with those of their patients. DISCUSSION: Examination of the ICF through the lens of cancer care highlights the fact that this framework can be a valuable tool to facilitate comprehensive care in oncology, but it currently possesses some areas of limitation that require conceptual revision; to this end, several recommendations have been proposed. Specifically, these proposed recommendations center on the following three areas of the ICF framework: (1) the replacement of the term "health condition" with the more inclusive and dynamic term "health state;" (2) the continuing development and refinement of the personal factors component to ensure issues such as comorbidities can be accounted for appropriately; and (3) the inclusion of a mechanism to account for the subjective dimension of health and functioning (eg, quality of life). SUMMARY: It is through the expansion of these conceptual parameters that the ICF may become more relevant and applicable to the field of oncology. With these important revisions, the ICF has the potential to provide a broader biopsychosocial perspective of care that captures the diverse range of concerns that arise throughout the continuum of care in oncology.
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 | 0.330 | 0.477 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".