Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tremor secondary to multiple sclerosis (MS) can be severely disabling but remains understudied. The development of brief, acceptable patient-reported measures of tremor could facilitate further study. We aimed to assess the criterion and construct validity of the Tremor and Coordination Scale (TACS) used by the North American Research Committee on Multiple Sclerosis (NARCOMS) Registry. Forty-four patients with MS completed the TACS and Performance Scales and underwent a neurologic examination (Expanded Disability Status Scale; EDSS) and evaluation with the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite (MSFC). We assessed criterion and construct validity with Spearman rank correlations between the TACS and the following measures: EDSS, Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT) of the MSFC, age, body-mass index (BMI), the hand function and mobility domains of the Performance Scales, and the Physical and Mental Composite Scores of the 36-item Short Form Health Status Survey (SF-36). The median (interquartile range; IQR) score on the TACS was 1 (0.5-2.0). The TACS correlated moderately with the cerebellar Functional System Score (FSS) (r = 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.70) and with the NHPT (r = -0.51; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.29). The TACS correlated with the hand (r = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.76) and mobility (r = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-0.73) domains of the Performance Scales. The TACS did not correlate significantly with age (r = -0.11; 95% CI, -0.40 to 0.19) or BMI (r = 0.15; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.43). These findings support the criterion and construct validity of the TACS. Further evaluation is needed to establish the test-retest reliability of the scale and its responsiveness to change.
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 | 0.093 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".