MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Measures of Walking in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: Criterion Validity

2008· article· en· W2043814637 on OpenAlexaff
Christy Tomkins‐Lane, Michele C. Battié

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntraclass correlationLumbar spinal stenosisPhysical therapyTreadmillMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationTest (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)LumbarPsychometricsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measurement of walking capacity in lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) populations is important for the assessment of physical function, treatment outcomes, and monitoring of the natural progression of the condition. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to examine criterion validity evidence for the use of a number of self-report instruments and a standardized treadmill protocol as surrogate measures of walking capacity in persons with LSS using a 'self paced walking test' as the criterion measure. A secondary objective was to determine the reliability of the criterion measure, the 'self paced walking test.' METHODS: Subjects had been diagnosed with LSS confirmed by MRI/CT imaging, had LSS associated walking limitations and were >50 years of age. Data collection involved three visits, 2-7 days apart. For the first two visits, subjects completed a self paced walking test on an indoor track during one visit and treadmill protocol during the other (in random order), as well as a questionnaire addressing walking capacity. A second self paced walking test was always completed during the third visit. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to examine associations, while an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to examine reliability. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 26 subjects with a mean age of 67, 62% of whom were female. Mean distance walked was 1209±1510m in the self paced walking test and 794±745m in the treadmill test. Mean self-reported walking distance was 1620±2390m. Total distance walked in the self paced walking test was highly correlated with total distance walked during the treadmill test (r=0.89), self-reported walking distance (r=0.83), and mean Swiss Spinal Stenosis Physical Function Scale score (r=−0.78). Data for two administrations of the self paced walking test were available for 16 subjects, yielding an ICC = 0.98 and R2=0.95. CONCLUSION: Preliminary results suggest that a treadmill protocol may best represent walking capacity in persons with LSS if a 'self paced walking test' is not feasible, although an underestimation in distance can be anticipated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology→French-language works237,207→