Designing a Patient Outcome Clinical Assessment Tool for Modified Rankin Scale: “You Feel the Same Way Too”
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
The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is a widely used outcome measure for assessing disability in stroke care; however, its administration is often affected by subjectivity and variability, leading to poor inter-rater reliability and inconsistent scoring. Originally designed for hospital discharge evaluations, the mRS has evolved into an outcome tool for disability assessment and clinical decision-making. Inconsistencies persist due to a lack of standardization and cognitive biases during its use. This paper presents design principles for creating a standardized clinical assessment tool (CAT) for the mRS, grounded in human–computer interaction (HCI) and cognitive engineering principles. Design principles were informed in part by an anonymous online survey conducted with clinicians across Canada to gain insights into current administration practices, opinions, and challenges of the mRS. The proposed design principles aim to reduce cognitive load, improve inter-rater reliability, and streamline the administration process of the mRS. By focusing on usability and standardization, the design principles seek to enhance scoring consistency and improve the overall reliability of clinical outcomes in stroke care and research. Developing a standardized CAT for the mRS represents a significant step toward improving the accuracy and consistency of stroke disability assessments. Future work will focus on real-world validation with healthcare stakeholders and exploring self-completed mRS assessments to further refine the tool.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it