MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core sets for deafblindness, part II of the systematic review: linking data to the ICF categories

2024· review· en· W4402277858 on OpenAlexafffund
Atul Jaiswal, Abinethaa Paramasivam, Shreya Budhiraja, Praveena Santhakumaran, Carolin Gravel, Jana Martin, Tosin Omonye Ogedengbe, Tyler G. James, B. J. Kennedy, Diana Tang, Yvvone Tran, Heather Colson-Osborne, Renu Minhas, Sarah Granberg, Walter Wittich

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHearing Impairment and Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversity of OttawaWorld Health Organization
KeywordsInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthMedicineCore (optical fiber)Physical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Deafblindness, a health condition with varying combinations of hearing and vision impairment, affects functioning and social participation. In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) introduced the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) to examine human health and functioning. To use the ICF in clinical practice, smaller categories of ICF codes, referred to as Core Sets, were developed for specific health conditions. However, no ICF Core Set exists for deafblindness. As part of an ICF Core Set development, this paper examines the existing literature from an ICF perspective and links relevant data to the ICF categories. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Articles were selected from eight scientific databases, three journals, and Google Scholar. The research team linked outcome measures and qualitative studies to ICF codes using ICF linking rules. For each measure/qualitative study's final code list, they included each code only once after eliminating any duplicates. Subsequently, a frequency analysis was conducted, and ICF categories identified in at least five studies were included in the candidate categories list. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: 147 articles met the eligibility criteria. Most studies were from Europe (N.=70) and North America (N.=41). 316 categories were identified in at least five studies that belong to one of four ICF components. This includes 112 categories in the body function component, 3 categories in body structure, 163 in activities and participation, and 38 in environmental factors. Additionally, 21 personal factors relating to demographics were identified. The most frequent category was listening (category d115) at 82.31%, followed by range of emotions (category b1522) at 78.91%, hearing function (category b230) at 68.03%, and assistive products and technology for communication (category e1251) at 63.27%. CONCLUSIONS: As the second part of the first four studies in developing ICF Core Sets for deafblindness, this review described the ICF categories relevant to the functioning of individuals with deafblindness. These categories inform the development of the Core Sets on deafblindness from the researcher's perspective. The final Core Sets will guide clinical practice, programs, and policies for individuals with deafblindness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.238
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicHearing Impairment and CommunicationFrench-language works237,207