The Lower Limb Amputee Measurement Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assesses the reliability and predictive validity of the Lower Limb Extremity Amputee Measurement Scale (LLAMS), which is an assessment tool designed to predict the length of stay (LOS) of patients with lower limb amputations in a rehabilitation program. In order to evaluate inter-rater reliability a prospective evaluation was completed by five independent evaluators (n = 10). Predictive validity was evaluated retrospectively by comparing the LLAMS predicted LOS to actual LOS (n = 147). The ability of the amputee team members to administer the LLAMS to patients was very high (ICC [2,1] = 0.98, CI 95% = 0.96 - 0.99, F[9, 36] = 78.71, p < 0.05). In addition, a moderate positive correlation was found between the LLAMS predicted LOS and the actual LOS (Pearson Correlation Coefficient, r = 0.465, p < 0.01), and the LLAMS was able to identify those patients who required short versus long rehabilitation stays. The incorporation of the LLAMS into the physiatrist's initial assessment of patients in the amputee clinic has enhanced the ability to manage better the LOS and the time patients wait to enter the rehabilitation program.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".