MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284990195 · doi:10.1002/mds.29142

Recommendations for Virtual Administration of the <scp>PSP</scp> Rating Scale

2022· letter· en· W4284990195 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Marie Wills, Lawrence I. Golbe, Anthony E. Lang, Tao Xie, Marian L. Dale, Alberto J. Espay, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, Susan H. Fox, Sotirios A. Parashos, Nikolaus R. McFarland, Ruth B. Schneider, Federico Rodríguez‐Porcel, Steven A. Gunzler, Alexander Pantelyat

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteToronto Western HospitalCentre for Movement DisordersUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitComputer scienceRating scaleMicrophoneGuard (computer science)PsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our article validating a subset of the Progressive Supranuclear Palsy Rating Scale (PSPRS) for video administration1 has prompted questions about how best to administer the individual test items given the constraints of that medium and of the disease. In response, we wish to provide several recommendations below as guidance (Table 1). We recommend following the guidance provided by the International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society on optimizing the physical video setup.2 If sound quality is poor, consider switching to a telephone for audio to assess voice and speech (while muting your microphone and speaker on the virtual platform). We recommend that the caregiver angles their camera to show the patient's entire body during the motor assessments, which may require moving the camera away from the patient or onto the floor. Ask the caregiver: “Does the patient grab onto the arms of chairs, peoples' arms, clothing, or tablecloths, inappropriately? Do they have difficulty letting go?” 1 = Slight or equivocal; 2 = Definitely present but no effect on daily activities; 3 = mild interference with daily activities; 4 = severe interference, interferes with feeding and dressing. This should be performed under the supervision of a caregiver who is comfortable preventing falls. A gait belt may be helpful. Use a hallway or open area if available, put the camera on the floor, and then ask the caregiver to guard the patient without touching them as they walk to prevent falls. The caregiver, in order to remain free to prevent falls, should not hold the camera during gait testing. If the caregiver feels that the patient is at high risk of falling, or must use a walker to prevent falls, score the item as 3 (must use assistance all or almost all the time). Use a non-wheeled chair. The caregiver or a wall should be behind the chair to prevent tipping backwards as the patient sits down. If the patient cannot resist using the arms of the chair, provide an armless chair. In summary, we believe that the majority of PSPRS items can be safely and accurately performed via video visits with minimal adjustments. This is of particular importance for patients who cannot travel to the clinical site because of distance, advanced motor disability, lack of transportation, or infectious disease constraints. The Geraldine A. Dolce Fund for Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP) at Massachusetts General Hospital. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study. (1) Research project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and critique; (3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the First Draft, B. Review and Critique. A.M.W.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3A L.I.G.: 1A, 1C, 3B A.E.L.: 1A, 1C, 3B T.X.: 1C, 3B M.D.: 1C, 3B A.E.: 1C, 3B M.C.T.: 1C, 3B S.H.F.: 1C, 3B S.A.P.: 1C, 3B N.R.M.: 1C, 3B R.B.S.: 1C, 3B F.R.P.: 1C, 3B. S.A.G.: 1C, 3B A.P.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 3B The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207