Reliability of the International Spinal Cord Injury Physical Therapy–Occupational Therapy Basic Data Set
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In interventional clinical trials for persons with spinal cord injury (SCI), the influence of experimental biological, pharmacological, or device-related interventions must be differentiated from that of physical and occupational therapy interventions, as rehabilitation influences motor-related outcomes. The International Spinal Cord Injury (ISCI) Physical Therapy–Occupational Therapy Basic Data Set (PT-OT BDS) was developed with the intent to track the content and time of rehabilitation interventions that are delivered concurrently with experimental interventions. We assessed the reliability of the PT-OT BDS based on agreement between users. Following an online training session, physical therapists (PTs) and occupational therapists (OTs) from 10 SCI clinical centers across 7 countries participated. At each center, pairs of therapists (a treating therapist and an observing therapist; PT/PT, OT/OT, or PT/OT) used the PT-OT BDS to record the content and time of therapy sessions for 20 patients. Data were analyzed to determine agreement between therapist pairs regarding the content of the therapy session. The influence of therapist characteristics (professional discipline [PT/OT], years of experience working with individuals with SCI), patient characteristics (level [tetraplegia/paraplegia] and severity [complete/incomplete] of injury), setting (inpatient/outpatient), and whether the center was U.S.- versus non-U.S.-based were also analyzed. There was high agreement for five of seven categories and medium agreement for the remaining two categories. For six of the seven intervention categories, there were no significant differences between the treating and the observing therapists in the percentage of instances that a specific category was selected. Characteristics of the therapists, characteristics of the patient, therapy setting, and global location of the center had no meaningful influence on level of agreement between therapist pairs. The BDS is reliable for use across settings, countries, and with patients of various impairment levels. The study also helped identify additional areas where refinement of the syllabus would be of value.
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 | 0.089 | 0.207 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".