Investigation of the psychometric properties of the inclusion body myositis functional rating scale with rasch analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Inclusion Body Myositis Functional Rating Scale (IBMRFS) is a 10-item clinician-rated ordinal scale developed for people with inclusion body myositis. METHODS: Single observations of the IBMFRS were collected from 132 patients. After Rasch analysis, modifications were made to the scale to optimize fit to the Rasch model while maintaining clinical validity and utility. RESULTS: The original IBMFRS did not fit the assumptions of the Rasch model because of multidimensionality of the scale. Items assessed local dependence, disordered step thresholds, and differential item functioning. Deconstructing the scale into upper limb (IBMFRS-UL) and lower limb (IBMFRS-LL) scales improved fit to the Rasch model. A 9-item scale with the swallowing item removed (IBMFRS-9) remained multidimensional but demonstrated the ability to discriminate patients along the severity continuum. IBMFRS-UL, IBMFRS-LL, and IBMFRS-9 scores were transformed to a 0-100 scale for comparability. DISCUSSION: This analysis has led to the development of 3 optimized versions of the IBMFRS. Muscle Nerve 60: 161-168, 2019.
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 | 0.030 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".