What is the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in the OneMinute Sit-to-Stand Test During Remote Interventions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: \nPulmonary rehabilitation (PR) is the most effective therapeutic strategy to improve health status in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With poor uptake and adherence to PR, a home-based rehabilitation programme could improve exercise capacity in these patients. A suitable outcome measure for home settings is required to assess such a programme’s effectiveness. \n \nPurpose: \nThe one-minute sit-to-stand test (1-min STS) can easily be performed within home settings, and has been validated for other clinical scenarios. This service evaluation aimed to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the 1-min STS following a remote exercise-based intervention. \n \nMethods: \nAnonymised data were analysed retrospectively from a comprehensive remote exercise-based intervention for patients with COPD. The 1-min STS, COPD Assessment Test and MRC dyspnoea scale were completed before and after the programme. Change in health status was recorded using the Global Rating of Change Questionnaire (GRCQ). Anchor-based methods were used to evaluate the MCID of the 1-min STS. \n \nResults: \nData were available from 106 patients. The median (IQR) improvement in 1-min STS after the programme was three (1-5) repetitions. Changes in 1-min STS repetitions were non-significantly and only weakly correlated with changes in MRC dyspnoea scale, COPD Assessment Test and GRCQ (r=-0.15, -0.12 and 0.09, respectively). The estimated MCID for the 1-min STS was three repetitions. \n \nConclusions: \nAn improvement of at least three repetitions in the 1-min STS was considered meaningful in this service evaluation. Anchors that display stronger correlations would be required to increase the robustness of the MCID estimates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".