MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800646036 · doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002684

Minimum Clinically Important Difference in SF-36 Scores for Use in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

2018· article· en· W2800646036 on OpenAlexaff
Jetan H. Badhiwala, Christopher D. Witiw, Farshad Nassiri, Muhammad Akbar, Blessing N. R. Jaja, Jefferson R. Wilson, Michael G. Fehlings

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimal clinically important differenceMedicineMyelopathyReceiver operating characteristicStandard errorStandard deviationPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis of 606 patients enrolled in the AOSpine CSM-NA or CSM-I prospective, multicenter cohort studies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores in patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There has been a shift toward focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in spine surgery. However, the numerical scores of PROs lack immediate clinical meaning. The MCID adds a dimension of interpretability to PRO scales; by defining the smallest change, a patient would consider meaningful. METHODS: The MCID of the SF-36v2 PCS and MCS were determined by distribution- and anchor-based methods comparing preoperative to 12-month scores. Distribution-based approaches included calculation of the half standard deviation and standard error of measurement (SEM). Change in Neck Disability Index (NDI) served as the anchor: "worse" (ΔNDI>7.5); "unchanged" (7.5≥ΔNDI>-7.5); "slightly improved" (-7.5≥ΔNDI>-15); and "markedly improved" (ΔNDI ≤-15). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the change score for the MCID with even sensitivity and specificity to distinguish patients who were "slightly improved" versus "unchanged" on the NDI. RESULTS: The MCID for the SF-36v2 PCS and MCS were 4.6 and 6.8 by half standard deviation and 2.9 and 4.3 by SEM, respectively. By ROC analysis, the MCID was 3.9 for the SF-36v2 PCS score and 3.2 for the SF-36v2 MCS score. Using a cutoff of 4 points, the SF-36v2 PCS had a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 68.1%, and MCS 61.9% and 64.6%, respectively, in separating patients who were "markedly improved" or "slightly improved" from those who were "unchanged" or "worse." CONCLUSION: We found the MCID of the SF-36v2 PCS and MCS to be 4 points. This will facilitate use of the SF-36v2 as an outcome in future studies of DCM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.288 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations107
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpineSame topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207