Does functional capacity evaluation predict recovery in workers’ compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Functional capacity evaluations (FCEs) are commonly used to determine return-to-work readiness and guide decision making following work related injury, yet little is known of their validity. The authors examined performance on the Isernhagen Work Systems' FCE as a predictor of timely and sustained recovery in workers' compensation claimants with upper extremity disorders. A secondary objective was to determine whether FCE is more predictive in claimants with specific injuries (that is, fracture) as compared to less specific, pain mediated disorders (that is, myofascial pain). METHODS: The authors performed a longitudinal study of 336 claimants with upper extremity disorders undergoing FCE. FCE indicators were maximum performance during handgrip and lift testing, and the number of tasks where performance was rated below required job demands. Outcomes investigated were days receiving time-loss benefits (a surrogate of return to work or work readiness) in the year following FCE, days until claim closure, and future recurrence defined as whether benefits restarted, the claim reopened, or a new upper extremity claim was filed. Cox and logistic regression were used to determine the prognostic effect of FCE crudely and after controlling for potential confounders. Analysis was performed separately on claimants with specific and pain mediated disorders. RESULTS: Most subjects (95%) experienced time-loss benefit suspension within one year following FCE. The one year recurrence rate was 39%. Higher lifting performance was associated with faster benefit suspension and claim closure, but explained little variation in these outcomes (r2 = 1.2-11%). No FCE indicators were associated with future recurrence after controlling for confounders. Results were similar between specific injury and less specific groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better FCE performance was a weak predictor of faster benefit suspension, and was unrelated to sustained recovery. FCE was no more predictive in claimants with specific pathology and injury than in those with more ambiguous, pain mediated conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".