Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Measures of Pain, Lung Function, Fatigue, and Functionality in Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), peak cough flow (PCF), peak expiratory flow (PEF), fatigue severity scale (FSS), and London chest activities of daily living scale (LCADL) in patients with spinal cord injuries (SCIs) after rehabilitation. METHODS: Inpatients with SCI from 2 rehabilitation centers participating in a daily rehabilitation program were recruited. The NPRS, PCF, PEF, FSS, and LCADL were collected at baseline and discharge. The global rating of change scale was performed at discharge. MCIDs were calculated using anchor (linear regression, mean change, and receiver operating characteristic curves) and distribution-based methods (0.5 times the baseline SD, standard error of measurement, 1.96 times standard error of measurement, and minimal detectable change) and pooled using arithmetic weighted mean. RESULTS: Sixty inpatients with SCI (36 males; 54.5 [15.9] years) participated. On average their rehabilitation program lasted 7.3 (1.7) weeks. Pooled MCID estimates were 1.6 points for the NPRS, 69.8 L/min for the PCF, 77.4 L/min for the PEF, 1.1 points for the FSS, and 1.4 points for the LCADL. CONCLUSION: Established MCIDs for NPRS, PCF, PEF, FSS, and LCADL will help health professionals to interpret results and guide rehabilitation interventions in patients with SCI. IMPACT: Health professionals and researchers may now use -1.6 points for the NPRS, 69.8 L/min for the PCF, 77.4 L/min for the PEF, 1.1 points for the FSS, and 1.4 points for the LCADL to interpret if changes in pain, cough intensity, expiratory flow, fatigue and activities of daily living after rehabilitation of patients with SCI have been clinically relevant.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".