MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414999039 · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2025.08.197

15. Minimal clinically important differences in the Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) in patients with symptomatic spinal metastases

2025· article· en· W4414999039 on OpenAlexaff
Anne L. Versteeg, Ilya Laufer, Daniel M. Sciubba, Michael G. Fehlings, Ziya L. Gokaslan, Nicolas Dea, Charles G. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Spine Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsVancouver General Hospital
FundersAOSpineOrthopaedic Research and Education Foundation
KeywordsSPINE (molecular biology)Thoracic spineMinimal clinically important differenceExact testCervical spine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: It is currently unknown what absolute change in Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) represents a clinically meaningful change for a patient which causes challenges with the interpretation of the SOSGOQ2.0 total score or domain scores. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the SOSGOQ2.0 in patients with spinal metastases. STUDY DESIGN: An international multicenter prospective observational study by the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients with spinal metastases who were treated with surgery and/or radiotherapy OUTCOME MEASURES: Health related quality of life (HRQOL) was evaluated using the SOSGOQ2.0 at predefined time points METHODS: The MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 were determined using both distribution-based as well as anchor-based methods. For the anchor-based method, the posttherapy questions of the SOSGOQ2.0 served as the anchor with response options collapsed into "improvement," "no change" and "deterioration." Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to identify posttherapy items with a correlation of ≥0.30 with the corresponding domain scores. MCID values from the distribution-based methods were derived using the statistical characteristics of the study population and compared to the anchor-based results. RESULTS: A total of 317 patients had SOSGOQ2.0 data available at baseline and at 12 weeks posttreatment and were included in the final analyses. Anchor-based MCID values for improvement in the physical function, pain, mental health and social function domains were 10.2, 26.0, 14.4 and 17.2 respectively. Compared with the distribution-based approach, anchor-based MCIDs for improvement suggest that the patient-perceived improvement corresponds to a strong level of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to report MCID values for the SOSGOQ2.0 total score and domain scores. The distribution-based MCID estimates will help both clinicians as well as researchers with the interpretation of the effect of treatment for painful spinal metastases on patient reported health related quality of life (HRQOL). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials identifier NCT01825161.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Spine JournalSame topicManagement of metastatic bone diseaseFrench-language works237,207