Vigorimeter grip strength in <scp>CIDP</scp>: a responsive tool that rapidly measures the effect of <scp>IVIG</scp> – the <scp>ICE</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In a recent trial in patients with chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP), the ICE study, grip strength measurement captured significantly more improvement in patients receiving immune globulin (IGIV-C) intravenously than in those receiving placebo. METHODS: We conducted a systematic analysis to determine the sensitivity of grip strength as an indicator of meaningful clinical changes in CIDP. RESULTS: A randomized double-blind trial was undertaken in 117 CIDP patients who received IGIV-C or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 24 weeks. Grip strength and inflammatory neuropathy cause and treatment (INCAT) disability scores were assessed at each visit, and the responsiveness of each scale was compared. A minimum clinically important difference cut-off value for grip strength (>8 kPa) and INCAT score (>1 point) was applied to assess the proportion of responders to IGIV-C versus placebo. This analysis showed that grip strength demonstrated significant improvement earlier (as early as day 16) than the INCAT disability scale in patients receiving IGIV-C compared with placebo. A significantly higher proportion of improvers were seen in the IGIV-C group (37.5%-50.9%) than in the placebo group (21.1%-25.9%) for grip strength at day 16, week 3, week 6 and the end of the first period. Also, grip strength showed within the first 6 weeks in the placebo group significantly more patients with a clinically meaningful deterioration (>8 kPa), compared with the INCAT (>1-point deterioration) findings. CONCLUSIONS: Grip strength can be considered a sensitive tool for assessing clinically relevant changes in patients with CIDP. Its use in daily practice is suggested.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".