Clinical Outcome Variables Scale: A retrospective validation study in patients after stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The construct, predictive and longitudinal validity of the Clinical Outcome Variables Scale (COVS), an assessment of functional mobility, was examined in relation to measures of functional disability (Functional Independence Measure (FIMTM)), balance (Berg Balance Scale (BBS)) and length of stay in inpatient stroke rehabilitation. METHODS: Associations between admission and discharge scores on each measure were examined retrospectively for 134 patients admitted for inpatient stroke rehabilitation. The association between admission scores and length of stay was tested using a simple linear regression. Paired t-tests and standardized response means were calculated to examine longitudinal validity. RESULTS: COVS scores were correlated with FIM and BBS scores at admission (rho = 0.823 and 0.895, respectively) and discharge (rho = 0.771 and 0.895, respectively). Admission COVS, FIM and BBS scores were correlated with length of stay (rho = -0.61, -0.69 and -0.61, respectively; p < 0.01). A significant (p < 0.01) linear association was demonstrated between admission scores and length of stay. All measures demonstrated significant change over time. Standardized response means were 1.23, 1.16 and 1.36 for the COVS, BBS and FIM, respectively. CONCLUSION: Within a subset of rehabilitation patients with stroke, the COVS demonstrated construct, predictive and longitudinal validity. The COVS provides a comprehensive assessment of functional mobility and should be evaluated further for its usefulness in stroke rehabilitation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".