ICF Core Set for patients with musculoskeletal conditions in the acute hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this consensus process was to decide on a first version of the ICF Core Set for patients with musculoskeletal conditions in the acute hospital. METHODS: The ICF Core Set development involved a formal decision-making and consensus process integrating evidence gathered from preliminary studies including focus groups of health professionals, a systematic review of the literature and empiric data collection from patients. RESULTS: Twenty-one experts selected a total of 47 second-level ICF categories. The largest number of categories was selected from the ICF component Body Functions (17 categories or 36%). Nine (19%) of the categories were selected from the component Body Structures, 11 (23%) from the component Activities and Participation, and 10 (21%) from the component Environmental Factors. CONCLUSION: The Acute ICF Core Set for patients with musculoskeletal conditions provides all professionals with a clinical framework to comprehensively assess patients in the acute hospital. This first ICF Core Set will be further tested through empiric studies in German-speaking countries and internationally.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".