Threshold definitions for significant change on the timed 25‐foot walk and nine‐hole peg test in primary progressive multiple sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The timed 25-foot walk (T25FW) and nine-hole peg test (NHPT) exhibit random variability in the short term. A threshold of ≥20% change from baseline has been used to indicate true disability change, but other threshold definitions may be better suited to exclude false and include true change events. The aim of this study was to use patient-level original trial data to investigate the short-term variation in T25FW and NHPT, and to compare its extent with disability change at 12-month follow-up in people with primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). METHODS: We used original patient-level data from PROMISE, a large PPMS trial. In this trial, three separate T25FW and NHPT measurements were performed 1 week apart during screening. We used these repeated measures to describe the extent of short-term variation. We used binary logistic regression models to investigate the association between screening characteristics and unacceptable short-term variation. RESULTS: The traditional 20% threshold excluded a reasonable number of false change events, while also yielding a large number of change events at follow-up. Increasing index values on the T25FW and NHPT were associated with higher short-term variation. CONCLUSIONS: The traditional ≥20% change threshold for the T25FW and NHPT represents a reasonable compromise between reducing the number of false change events and achieving the largest number of change events in people with PPMS. Our analyses inform the design of clinical trials in PPMS.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".