The minimal clinically important difference of two multifaceted fatigue evaluation questionnaires in chronic stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This research sought to ascertain the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Robust Clinically Important Difference (RCID) of the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory-Short Form (MFSI-SF) and Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire-11 (CFQ-11) as two important concepts for the clinical interpretation of the results in chronic post-stroke population. METHODS: A total of 128 subjects with chronic post-stroke completed the MFSI-SF and CFQ-11 before and after six weeks of intervention. The MCIDs were derived using both anchor- and distribution-based methods; however, only anchor-based methods were used to estimate RCIDs. RESULTS: Anchor-based MCIDs for MFSI-SF and CFQ-11 were in the range of -5 to -6.28 and -2 to -4.56, respectively. Distribution-based MCIDs in MFSI-SF and CFQ-11 were calculated in the range of -4.17 to -24.05 and -1.72 to -7.68, respectively. RCID ranges of -10 to -15 were obtained for the MFSI-SF and -6 to -7.33 for the CFQ-11. CONCLUSION: These findings may have implications for clinical experts in the clinical interpretation of fatigue changes observed in MFSI-SF and CFQ-11 in individuals with chronic stroke.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".