Validity of a smartphone app to objectively monitor performance outcomes in degenerative cervical myelopathy: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objectives To assess the validity of MoveMed, a battery of performance outcome measures performed using a mobile phone application, in the measurement of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM). Design Prospective observational study. Setting Decentralised secondary care in England, United Kingdom. Participants 27 adults aged 60 (SD: 11) who live with DCM and possess an approved smartphone. Primary and secondary outcome measures Criteria from the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) manual were used to assess validity and risk of bias. Briefly, each MoveMed outcome was compared to two patient-reported comparators, and a priori hypotheses of convergence/divergence were tested against consensus thresholds. The primary outcome was the correlation coefficient between the MoveMed outcome and the patient-reported comparators. The secondary outcome was the percent of correlations in correspondence with a priori hypotheses. The comparators were the patient-derived modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (P-mJOA) score and the World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Version (WHOQOL-Bref) questionnaire. Thresholds for convergence/divergence were ≥0.3/<0.3, and >0/<0 for directionality. Results As expected, MoveMed’s tests of neuromuscular function correlated most with questionnaires of neuromuscular function (≥0.3) and least with questionnaires of quality of life (<0.3). Furthermore, directly related constructs correlated positively to each other (>0), while inversely related constructs correlated negatively (<0). Over 70% and 50% of correlations (unidimensional and multidimensional, respectively) were in accordance with hypotheses. No risk of bias factors from the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist were recorded. Overall, this was equivalent to ‘very good’ quality evidence of sufficient construct validity in DCM. Conclusions Criteria from COSMIN provide ‘very good’ quality evidence of the validity of the MoveMed tests in an adult population living with DCM.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".