Validity of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Limited research assessed the validity of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence, ABC) Scale in individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD) at risk of falls. We report on the scale’s construct and criterion validity.Methods Construct validity was established by assessing known groups, convergent, and divergent validity. A receiver operating characteristic, (ROC) curve and logistic regression examined the criterion validity of the scale.Results In 223 individuals with COPD, the ABC Scale significantly, (p < 0.001) discriminated between groups, with lower scores for females [Mean difference (MD) = 10%], rollator use [MD = 13%], and fallers [MD = 12%], and had a strong association [r = 0.58, p < 0.001] with Berg Balance Scale. The scale distinguished fallers from non-fallers with a cutoff value of 58% [Area Under the Curve = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.57–0.72, p < 0.001] and significantly identified fall status [B, SE = −0.03, 0.01, p < 0.001] with an odds ratio of 0.97 [95%CI = 0.96–0.99]. The sensitivity, specificity, and test accuracy were: 61, 58, and 60%, respectively.Conclusion The ABC Scale showed evidence for known groups, convergent, and divergent validity and can assist in identifying fall status in individuals with COPD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".