Nih score
Pro Research Analysisby 
Searched over 200M research papers for "nih score"
Consensus Meter
Understanding the NIH Score: Reliability, Validity, and Applications
NIH Clinical Score for Cystic Fibrosis: Internal Validity and Reliability
The NIH Clinical Score for Cystic Fibrosis (CF) is a tool used to measure disease status in CF patients. A study examined its internal consistency, interrater reliability, and factor analysis to determine its effectiveness. The pulmonary subscore and overall score showed high internal consistency, indicating that these items are well-correlated and measure a single element of disease status. However, the general subscore had low internal consistency, suggesting that it does not effectively measure a single element and should not be included in the overall score. Factor analysis identified five factors—general pulmonary, weight, disability, psychosocial, and acute infiltrate—that accounted for 85% of the consistent variance of 14 items. The study concluded that the general subscore items do not contribute significantly to the reliability of the NIH Score and may need refinement or elimination.
NIH Stroke Scale: Retrospective and Prospective Reliability
The NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) is a widely used measure for assessing stroke severity. Research has validated its use both retrospectively and prospectively. An algorithm for retrospective NIHSS scoring showed high interrater reliability (r²=0.98) and excellent agreement with prospective scores (r²=0.94), indicating that retrospective scoring is reliable even with incomplete physical examination data. Another study confirmed that NIHSS scores could be reliably estimated from medical records, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.82 among raters. This suggests that NIHSS can be used effectively in retrospective studies to assess stroke outcomes. Additionally, serial assessments using NIHSS in acute stroke patients showed significant improvement in scores over time, particularly in patients with middle cerebral artery territory embolism.
NIH Peer Review Scores: Predictive Validity and Funding Outcomes
The NIH peer review process is crucial for funding biomedical research. Studies have examined the predictive validity of NIH peer review scores and their correlation with funding outcomes. One study found that all scored review criteria, including innovation, are related to the overall impact score, and good scores across all criteria are necessary for a favorable overall impact score. Another study highlighted that the Approach and Significance criterion scores are the main predictors of an R01 application's overall impact score and its likelihood of being funded. However, the use of bibliometric indices alone to measure scientific impact is not valid, as they do not account for the improvements made to projects post-peer review.
NIH Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease (cGVHD) Scoring: Validity and Reliability
The NIH scoring system for chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) has been validated for its reliability and correlation with disease severity. A study involving 189 patients found that NIH organ and global severity scores are reliable measures of cGVHD disease burden. These scores showed significant associations with functional and quality of life outcome measures, such as the Lee Symptom Scale and Short Form-36 Physical Component Scale. The NIH lung score, in particular, was a strong predictor of poor overall survival. Another study validated the NIH scale for oral cGVHD, finding moderate correlation with pain scores and good internal consistency reliability, especially for erythema and ulceration parameters.
NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery: Composite Scores and Reliability
The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB) includes tests covering various cognitive abilities and provides composite scores for crystallized and fluid cognition. These scores have shown excellent test-retest reliability and strong correlations with established measures of similar abilities. The composite scores are also significantly associated with maternal reports of children's health status and school performance, indicating their validity in assessing cognitive function.
Conclusion
The NIH scoring systems across various medical conditions and research evaluations demonstrate high reliability and validity. Whether assessing disease severity in cystic fibrosis, stroke outcomes, or the impact of peer-reviewed research, these scores provide valuable insights and standardized measures for clinical and research applications. The continuous refinement and validation of these scoring systems ensure their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes and advancing scientific research.
Sources and full results
Most relevant research papers on this topic