Rating Scales and Performance‐based Measures for Assessment of Functional Ability in Huntington's Disease: Critique and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limitation of functional ability is a major feature of Huntington's disease (HD). The International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society (MDS) commissioned the appraisal of the use and clinimetric properties of clinical measures of functional ability that have been applied in HD studies and trials to date, to make recommendations regarding their use based on standardized criteria. After a systematic literature search, we included a total of 29 clinical measures grouped into two categories: (1) performance-based measures (e.g., balance, walking, and reaching/grasping), and (2) rating scales. Three performance-based measures are rated as "recommended": the Tinetti Mobility Test for screening of fall risk and for severity assessment of mobility in patients with manifest HD (up to stage III); the Berg Balance Scale for severity of balance impairment; and the Six-Minute Walk Test for assessment of walking endurance (severity) in HD subjects with preserved ambulation. No rating scale targeting functional ability reached a "recommended" status either for screening or severity measurement. The main challenges identified in this review include applying widely accepted conceptual frameworks to the identified measures, the lack of validation of clinical measures to detect change over time, and absence of validated measures for upper limb function. Furthermore, measures of capacity or ability to perform activities of daily living had ceiling effects in people with early and pre-manifest HD. We recommend that the MDS prioritize the development of new scales that capture small, but meaningful changes in function over time for outcome assessment in clinical trials, particularly in earlier stages of HD.
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 | 0.188 | 0.362 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".