Changes over Time and Responsiveness of the Cochin Hand Function Scale and Mouth Handicap in Systemic Sclerosis Scale in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess changes over time and responsiveness of the Cochin Hand Function Scale (CHFS) and Mouth Handicap In Systemic Sclerosis (MHISS) scale in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc). DESIGN: This was a prospective longitudinal study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were drawn from a convenience sample of individuals with SSc, who were attending the annual Congress of the Association des Sclérodermiques de France, the French SSc patients' association. METHODS: Participants were evaluated twice by the CHFS, MHISS scale, Health Assessment Questionnaire, McMaster-Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire, and other outcome measures. Differences in measures over time were evaluated using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Responsiveness was assessed by the effect size and standardized response mean. Nonparametric Spearman rank correlation (r) was used to assess correlation between outcome measures. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients were assessed. The CHFS and MHISS scores worsened over time (mean [SD] differences 2.7 [10.7], P = 0.08, and 3.5 [9.8], P = 0.14, respectively). The CHFS effect size and standardized response mean values were -0.16 and -0.24, respectively, and MHISS values were -0.53 and -0.52, respectively. The correlation between change in the CHFS score and change in Health Assessment Questionnaire and McMaster-Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire scores was fair to moderate, whereas changes in MHISS score were poorly or not correlated to other measures. For patients considering their state deteriorated, the MHISS scale was the most responsive instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The CHFS and MHISS scores may be useful in detecting changes in location-specific limitations in activity for SSc patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".