ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2026
Statistical interval-based assessment of work disability using large-scale medical data: implications for public health and workforce participation.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Work disability assessment is a key component of occupational health systems, influencing compensation, return-to-work decisions, and workforce management. However, variability in expert evaluations remains a major challenge. This study aims to identify recurring population-level patterns of disability severity using large-scale medical expert data. Methods: A retrospective dataset of 4,863 disability assessments conducted between 2020 and 2024 was analyzed. After applying inclusion criteria, 2,065 observations across 161 ICD-10 diagnostic categories were included. Statistical analysis involved empirical distribution modeling, concentration function estimation, confidence interval analysis, and hypothesis testing. Robustness was assessed using Monte Carlo resampling. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the predefined intervals were frequently reproduced as dominant concentration intervals under repeated resampling. Results: Disability severity showed distinct concentration patterns across diagnostic groups. Moderate impairment cases were concentrated within the 30%-45% interval, while more severe cases clustered within the 46%-59% interval. These intervals captured more than 90% of observations in the major diagnostic groups. Differences in disability distributions between diagnostic groups were statistically significant ( Conclusions: The proposed interval-based approach provides a reproducible, data-driven representation of work disability severity. Rather than demonstrating improved consistency in expert assessment, the findings identify recurring concentration patterns that may provide a quantitative reference for further research on disability assessment. Further external and clinical validation is required before the approach can be considered for implementation in disability assessment practice. These findings are relevant for population-level assessment of work disability and may inform public health monitoring and workforce participation policies.
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.