MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073163468 · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000025

Sensitivity and Specificity of the Minimal Chair Height Standing Ability Test

2014· article· en· W2073163468 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicMedicineLogistic regressionPhysical therapyTest (biology)CohortPoison controlMedical historyGerontologySurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Fall-risk screening instruments have been underutilized in clinical settings because of their lengthy administration time, need of cumbersome equipment, and lack of validation. The primary objective of this study was to assess the validity (sensitivity and specificity) of the Minimal Chair Height Standing Ability Test (MCHSAT). The secondary objective was to develop guidelines to provide physical therapists with best-practice recommendations that can easily be implemented in clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used in which falling history, major medical conditions, cognitive status (Mini-Mental State Examination), and level of independence (Independent Activities of Daily Living) were obtained for 167 community-dwelling older adults (mean age = 83.6 ± 7.3 years), residents of British Columbia, Canada. Participants MCHSAT performance was assessed using a chair whose seat height was modifiable by increments of 5 cm, starting at 47 cm and lowering after each successful attempt. Sensitivity and specificity of the MCHSAT at each chair height were calculated and plotted as a receiver operating characteristic curve. A model to identify participants with history of falls was developed using a forward logistic regression (Wald). RESULTS: Mean MCHSAT performance (cm) was significantly better for participants without history of falls (30.3 cm, 95% CI: 28.1-32.5 cm) than for those with history of falls (37.7 cm, 95% CI: 35.5-40.0 cm) and was the single risk factor associated with fall status (β= 1.087, P < .001). The optimal MCHSAT performance for identifying participants with history of falls was 34 cm (AUC = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.82). At this threshold, sensitivity and specificity values were 75% and 62%, respectively. DISCUSSION: Using 34 cm as the optimal performance, the MCHSAT correctly identified 75% of participants with history of falls and 62% of participants without history of falls. This provides evidence that the MCHSAT is a valid screening tool for use with an older Canadian population. CONCLUSION: As a simple and inexpensive testing instrument, the MCHSAT has potential to enhance the care of our elderly population, improve an understanding of patients' fall-risk status, and substantially reduce fall-related costs to the health care system.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.305 · 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