Disability weight for each level of the Expanded Disability Status Scale in multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) is the most widely employed ordinal disability scale in multiple sclerosis (MS). However, how far apart the individual EDSS levels are along the disability spectrum has not been formally quantified. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this paper is to generate refined disability weights (DWs) for each of the ordinal EDSS levels. METHODS: We performed the person trade-off (PTO) procedure to derive DWs of five representative EDSS categories (2, 4, 6, 7 and 9), and DWs of the remaining EDSS categories were assigned by linear interpolation. The modified Delphi process was used to achieve consensus among raters. RESULTS: DWs were 0.021 for EDSS 2, 0.199 for EDSS 4, 0.313 for EDSS 6, 0.617 for EDSS 7, and 0.926 for EDSS 9. Panel members achieved a high degree of consensus for each DW, as indicated by low coefficients of variation. CONCLUSIONS: Our DWs confirmed that EDSS is an ordinal scale with highly variable intervals. The availability of DW for each EDSS level allows direct comparison of each MS outcome state with other health states and provides a foundation for the estimation of the disability-adjusted life-years lost of individual patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".