Proposal for a Candidate Core Set of Fitness and Strength Tests for Patients with Childhood or Adult Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Currently there are no evidence-based recommendations regarding fitness and strength tests for patients with childhood or adult idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). This hinders clinicians and researchers in choosing the appropriate fitness- or muscle strength-related outcome measures for these patients. Through a Delphi survey, we aimed to identify a candidate core set of fitness and strength tests for children and adults with IIM. METHODS: Fifteen experts participated in a Delphi survey that consisted of 5 stages to achieve a consensus. Using an extensive search of published literature and through the work of experts, a candidate core set based on expert opinion and clinimetrics properties was developed. Members of the International Myositis Assessment and Clinical Studies Group were invited to review this candidate core set during the final stage, which led to a final candidate core set. RESULTS: A core set of fitness- and strength-related outcome measures was identified for children and adults with IIM. For both children and adults, different tests were identified and selected for maximal aerobic fitness, submaximal aerobic fitness, anaerobic fitness, muscle strength tests, and muscle function tests. CONCLUSION: The core set of fitness- and strength-related outcome measures provided by this expert consensus process will assist practitioners and researchers in deciding which tests to use in patients with IIM. This will improve the uniformity of fitness and strength tests across studies, thereby facilitating the comparison of study results and therapeutic exercise program outcomes among patients with IIM.
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 | 0.116 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".