Quantifying Neck Fibrosis and Its Functional Implications: Development of the Neck Fibrosis Scale.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of functional outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer, post-treatment neck fibrosis remains poorly understood. We sought to develop and validate a patient reported outcome measure for head and neck cancer patients with neck fibrosis. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective multiphase cross-sectional study. METHODS: To guide instrument development, we employed the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health as our conceptual framework. Items were generated using a composite strategy consisting of patient focus groups, literature review, and expert opinion from a multidisciplinary group. Candidate items were reduced through the item impact method. Preliminary psychometric properties of the finalized instrument were evaluated through measures of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and construct validity. RESULTS: Four in person focus groups were held with 13 head and neck cancer patients. The process of item generation led to 221 relevant citations and 68 unique items. An additional 17 items were identified from review of existing neck disability questionnaires and expert opinion. A draft instrument with 25 candidate items was generated and reduced to its final 15-item scale using item impact method. Early psychometric testing revealed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95) and test-retest reliability [ICC = 0.95]. Internal consistency at the item level was good (>0.7) for 11/15 individual items. Four separate constructs were evaluated. Three of the four constructs matched our a priori hypotheses. CONCLUSION: The Neck Fibrosis Scale demonstrates preliminary reliability and validity for discriminate use. Further research is needed to confirm dimensionality and assess responsiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 132:1015-1021, 2022.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".