MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402544499 · doi:10.1177/02692155241280524

Rasch Analysis of the Chinese Version of the Nociception Coma Scale–Revised in Patients with Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness

2024· article· en· W4402544499 on OpenAlexaff
Yuhang Zheng, Xinyou Lin, Yuehong Huang, Steven Laureys, Haibo Di

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Rehabilitation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPersistent vegetative stateRasch modelPsychologyComa (optics)Glasgow Coma ScaleMinimally conscious stateClinical psychologyPsychometricsLevel of consciousnessConsciousnessPsychiatryDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze the Chinese version of the Nociception Coma Scale-Revised in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness within the framework of Rasch modeling, including investigating the invariance of total scores across different etiologies of disorders of consciousness. DESIGN: Prospective psychometric study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness from the Rehabilitation and Neurology units in hospital. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The Nociception Coma Scale-Revised was undertaken by trained raters and the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised was used to assess patients' consciousness. The psychometric properties within the Rasch model including item-person targeting, reliability and separation, item fit, unidimensionality, and differential item functioning were assessed. RESULTS: 84 patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (mean age 53 years; mean injury 5 months; 42 with Minimally Conscious State and 42 with Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome) of 252 observations were enrolled in the study. Through the procedure of repeated assessment and differential item function, a lower item bias Rasch set was purified. The Rasch model assumptions were examined and met, with item reliability and validity meeting the recommended threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the Nociception Coma Scale-Revised demonstrated unidimensionality, good reliability and separation, and good item fit, but dissatisfied person fit and item-person targeting. The verbal subscale showed a notable discrepancy between person responses and the difficulty of the items, suggesting limited clinical significance.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical RehabilitationSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207