The MSIS-29 and SF-36 as outcomes in secondary progressive MS trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used in clinical research, but little is known about their performance as longitudinal outcomes. METHODS: = 889), to investigate changes on the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36 v2) and the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) over 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: PROM scores changed little over the 2 years of follow-up. In contrast to physical disability measures, there was no consistent trend in PROM change: significant worsening occurred about as often as improvement. Using a 6-month confirmation reduced the number of both worsening and improvement events without altering their relative balance. There was no clear difference in worsening events in groups based on population characteristics, nor was there a noticeable effect using different thresholds for clinically significant change. CONCLUSION: We found little consistent change in MSIS-29 and SF-36 over 2 years of follow-up in people with SPMS. Our findings show a disconnect between disability worsening and PROM change in this population. Our findings raise caution about the use of these PROMs as primary outcome measures in SPMS trials and call for a critical reappraisal of the longitudinal use of these measures in SPMS trials.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".