Psychometric analysis of the Functional Independence Score in Haemophilia (FISH)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joint morbidity in haemophilia has traditionally been measured using clinical and radiological scores. There have been no reliable, validated tools for the assessment of functional independence in persons with haemophilia till recently. The Functional Independence Score in Haemophilia (FISH) has been developed as a performance based assessment tool to address this need. The FISH is designed to measure the patient's independence in performing activities of daily living (grooming and eating, bathing and dressing), transfers (chair and floor), and mobility (walking, step climbing and running). On assessment of its psychometric properties in 63 patients with haemophilia (mean age 14 years), FISH was found to have good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.85). It had moderate correlation with the World Federation of Hemophilia clinical score (r = -0.61), and a correlation with the Pettersson score of -0.38. It had good correlation with other self-rated functional scores, such as the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (r = -0.75); the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (r = -0.66) and the Haemophilia Activities List (HAL) (r = -0.66). It had good reliability with a pooled intra class correlation of 0.98. On assessing responsiveness following treatment of flexion deformities of the knee in 12 patients, the FISH showed significant changes in the score with a standardized responsiveness mean of -1.93. In conclusion, the FISH was found to be a reliable and valid tool with good internal consistency and responsiveness to therapy, for the assessment of functional independence in persons with haemophilia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".