Evaluation of the Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale 88: A Short Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale 88 (MSSS-88) is designed to capture the patient experience and impact of spasticity, but there is limited evaluation against clinician-rated measures of spasticity. Objective: To evaluate the convergent validity and responsiveness of the MSSS-88. Design: Longitudinal study. Setting: University Laboratory. Subjects: Thirty-four people with multiple sclerosis. Methods: People with multiple sclerosis (MS; n = 34) completed the self-reported 12-item Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale, Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale, Barthel Index alongside the clinician-rated Ashworth Scale, and a laboratory-based measure of ankle spasticity. Spasticity measure responsiveness was evaluated in 20 participants at two time points, an average of 8.75 ± 3.8 months apart. Results: In people with MS (mean age 55.1 ± 8.1 years; Expanded Disability Scale range 4.5-7.0), spasticity symptom specific subscales of the MSSS-88 (stiffness and spasms) showed strong and significant correlations with the clinician-rated Ashworth Scale ( r = 0.52-0.53; P < .01). Responsiveness of the MSSS-88 was comparable to a laboratory-based measure of ankle spasticity. Conclusions: Our findings lend additional support to the convergent validity of this measure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".