ArticleActa neurochirurgica2026
External validation of a machine learning-based web application for personalized testing of objective functioning using the five-repetition sit-to-stand test.
Article in Acta neurochirurgica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSimple generalized thresholds for assessing functional impairment in clinical testing are limited, as they fail to consider patient-specific properties such as age, body height, and body mass index. A previously developed machine learning-based model for personalized testing using the five-repetition sit-to-stand (5R-STS) test, that estimates personalized upper limits of normal (ULN) to identify objective functional impairment (OFI) was externally validated to evaluate its performance and generalizability across cohorts.
methodsOnly healthy individuals were included in the study. After the machine learning-based model was applied to this external dataset, expected and observed 5R-STS test times were compared using standardized performance assessment metrics including root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and R
resultsApplication of the model to 171 healthy individuals resulted in an RMSE of 2.33 (95% CI: 1.93 to 2.73) seconds, MAE of 1.70 (95% CI: 1.47 to 1.94) seconds, and R
conclusionsIn the context of personalized testing, moving toward individually focused precision assessment of patients requires rigorous external validation to ensure the robustness of such applied computational methods. In this external validation, the model demonstrated limited generalization including a systematic underestimation of slower test times and insufficient personalized ULN calibration. These findings indicate that external validity of models derived from single-center data can be limited, underscoring the importance of comprehensive external validation and, potentially, multicenter retraining before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.