Assessing Functional Outcomes of Children With Muscular Dystrophy and Scoliosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to develop a valid and reliable scale to evaluate the symptoms and functional abilities important to children with scoliosis and muscular dystrophy and their parents. METHODS: Eighty-five items were generated from a review of the literature and interviews with clinicians, parents, and children with muscular dystrophy and scoliosis. Items were reviewed and rated in terms of "importance" and "severity" by the children and their parents. The foremost 29 items were formatted into a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: The questionnaire, completed 2 weeks apart, demonstrated "excellent" test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97). Construct validity was established through correlations with forced vital capacity (r = 0.46; P = 0.02), the Activities Scale for Kids (r = 0.40; P = 0.04), and the Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Questionnaire (r = 0.72; P = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the Muscular Dystrophy Spine Questionnaire is a valid and reliable questionnaire designed to assess the outcomes of treatment in children with muscular dystrophy and scoliosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE OR CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Prognostic level 2.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".