Inter-Rater Reliability of the International Standards to Document Remaining Autonomic Function after Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The autonomic nervous system can be profoundly affected after spinal cord injury (SCI). Despite its importance to quality of life, autonomic function is rarely systematically assessed in the clinical setting. The International Standards to Document Remaining Autonomic Function after Spinal Cord Injury (ISAFSCI) is an assessment designed to determine which autonomic functions are intact, impaired, or lost after SCI. The psychometric properties of the ISAFSCI have not yet been reported. The objective of this study was to describe the inter-rater reliability of the ISAFSCI. Participants with chronic traumatic SCI (greater than 1 year) able to remain on the same medications for the study period and communicate clearly with the assessor were recruited for the study. A standard protocol minimized variation between the sites. During the first assessment, neurologic examination (ISNCSCI) was performed and ISAFSCI completed. After 10-14 days, the ISAFSCI was repeated. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using percentage agreement, kappa, and weighted kappa statistics. Participants (n = 48) had an average age of 45 ± 12 years. Forty-one (85.4%) were male, 38 (79.2%) had a SCI at or above the T6 level, 24 (50.0%) had a complete SCI. Inter-rater reliability within the general autonomic component was moderate with kappa values ranging 0.41-0.6 (p < 0.05). Within the Lower Urinary Tract, Bowel, and Sexual Function component, agreement was good-strong with weighted kappa values 0.62-0.88 (p < 0.05). Given the results, we conclude that the ISAFSCI can be considered to have at least moderate and up to strong inter-rater reliability, especially in the bladder, bowel, and sexual function component of the assessment.
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 | 0.077 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".