iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

ME/CFS Science @mecfsscience.org · 14/09/2026

3) They recommend starting with a low-risk evaluation using some validated questionnaires (see screenshot below). Examples are the SF-36 for physical functioning or the DSQ-2 to assess post-exertional malaise. They have worked out ME/CFS thresholds for each tool.

2102

ME/CFS Science @mecfsscience.org · 14/09/2026

4) They argue that objective tests could be useful in ME/CFS but that they should be used in a cautious and targeted way, for example if the diagnosis is unclear, for treatment personalization, or for disability/social benefits documentation.

2102

ME/CFS Science @mecfsscience.org · 14/09/2026

5) I think the document make some sensible recommendations but I also have strong doubts about some of the threshold they use. For actigraphy they use a cutoff of <2300 steps/day which is quite low. Many patients with mild-moderate ME/CFS will have more steps than this.

2142

Andreas Longva @andlon.bsky.social · 14/09/2026

I think opening the door for use of 2-day CPET in "disability benefits documentation" like this is unfortunate. We already know that 2-day CPET is a poor diagnostic tool with considerable risk. I wish they'd rather restrict use to voluntary research settings with informed consent

010