Reliability of Four Functional Tests and Rating of Perceived Exertion in Persons with Multiple Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Test-retest reliability and convergent and discriminant validity for four commonly used clinical tests of physical function were examined in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Method: Twelve ambulatory adults with clinically diagnosed MS (Expanded Disability Status Scale scores: mean = 3.6, range = 2.0−6.5) participated in a test-retest reliability study with a one-week interval between testing sessions. Functional tests included the 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Functional Stair Test (FST), Static Standing Balance Test (BAL), and six-repetition Sit-to-Stand Test (SST). Distance was recorded for the 6MWT. All other tests were timed. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) was recorded following each test. Intraclass correlation coefficients and Spearman rho correlation coefficients were used to examine agreement between test sessions. Results: Test-retest reliability for best trial of each test was significant for all tests (p < .01): the 6MWT (r 2 = .97), FST (r 2 = .97), BAL (r 2 = .81), and SST (r 2 = .94). Subjects rated RPE consistently each week for all tests (p < .05). RPE was significantly correlated with the associated test for only the BAL and FST. Conclusion: The 6MWT, FST, BAL, and SST are highly reliable tests in ambulatory persons with MS. Although subjects were consistent in the RPE following each of the functional tests, RPE did not always correlate well with performance on functional tests.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".