The de Morton mobility index is a feasible and valid mobility assessment tool in hospitalized patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no accepted standard for measuring mobility in hospitalized patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). The objective of this study was to assess convergent, discriminant, and known-group validity and floor/ceiling effects of the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) in hospitalized patients with AECOPD. Individuals with AECOPD ( n = 22) admitted to an acute care hospital medical ward were recruited. Data on the DEMMI, gait speed, daytime energy expenditure, step counts, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), dyspnea, respiratory and heart rates, quality of life, and oxygen supplementation were collected on day 3 of admission. The DEMMI demonstrated convergent validity with the 6MWD and gait velocity measures (Spearman’s ρ 0.69 and 0.61, respectively; p < 0.003) but not with measures of physical activity or respiratory impairment. Discriminant validity was present, with no correlation between the DEMMI and quality of life and resting heart rate. Known-group validity (gait aids vs. no gait aids) was demonstrated ( p = 0.009). There was no floor effect but there was evidence of a possible ceiling effect (14% of participants received a perfect score). The DEMMI is feasible and showed moderate to strong validity with measures of observed physical function in hospitalized patients with AECOPD.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".