Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network hand exercise program (SPIN-HAND): Study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Significant functional impairment of the hands is nearly universal in systemic sclerosis (SSc, scleroderma). Hand exercises may improve hand function, but developing, testing and disseminating rehabilitation interventions in SSc is challenging. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) was established to address this issue and has developed an online hand exercise program to improve hand function for SSc patients (SPIN-HAND). The aim of the proposed feasibility trial is to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-HAND intervention. Design and methods: The SPIN-HAND feasibility trial will be conducted via the SPIN Cohort. The SPIN Cohort was developed as a framework for embedded pragmatic trials using the cohort multiple RCT design. In total, 40 English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants with at least mild hand function limitations (Cochin Hand Function Scale ≥3) and an indicated interest in using an online hand-exercise intervention will be randomized with a 1:1 ratio to be offered to use the SPIN-HAND program or usual care for 3 months. The primary aim is to evaluate the trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and participant acceptability and usage of the SPIN-HAND program. Discussion: The SPIN-HAND exercise program is a self-help tool that may improve hand function in patients with SSc. The SPIN-HAND feasibility trial will ensure that trial methodology is robust, feasible, and consistent with trial participant expectations. The results will guide adjustments that need to be implemented before undertaking a full-scale RCT of the SPIN-HAND program. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03092024.
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 | 0.034 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.013 |
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".