MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research

2002· review· en· W2325079879 on OpenAlexaff
Dorcas Beaton, M Boers, George A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Rheumatology · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimal clinically important differenceMedicineContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Medical physicsPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for an instrument is a much sought after, but elusive figure. In this review we will highlight new findings in this area, including taxonomy of MCID, methods used to ascertain MCID, the perspective taken for evaluating importance, and other sources of variation for MCID values. In the end we believe the MCID will be a context-specific value rather than a fixed number. The review highlights the need to do methodological research in this area, especially concurrent comparisons between approaches, or across different patient groups. There are many faces to the MCID, it is not a simple concept, nor simple to calculate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.281
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.474
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2810.474
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.775
GPT teacher head0.622
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations520
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in RheumatologySame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207