Interpretation of Change in Novel Digital Measures: A Statistical Review and Tutorial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Novel clinical measures assessed by a digital health technology tool require thresholds to interpret change over time, such as the minimal clinically important difference. Establishing such thresholds is a key component of clinical validation, facilitating understanding of relevant treatment effects. Summary: Many of the approaches to derive interpretative thresholds for patient-reported outcomes can be applied to digital clinical measures. We present theoretical background to the use of interpretative thresholds, including the distinction between thresholds based on perceived importance versus measurement error, and thresholds for group- versus individual-level interpretations. We then review methods to estimate such thresholds, including anchor-based approaches. We illustrate the methods using data on cough frequency counts as measured by a wearable device in a clinical trial. Key Messages: This paper provides an overview of statistical methodologies to estimate thresholds for the interpretation of change.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it