The German Hip Outcome Score: Validation in Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Femoroacetabular Impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To cross-culturally adapt and validate the Hip Outcome Score (HOS) for use in German-speaking patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. METHODS: After cross-cultural adaptation (German-language version of the HOS [HOS-D]), the following metric properties of the questionnaire were assessed in 85 consecutive patients (mean age, 33.4 years; 36 women) undergoing hip arthroscopy or surgical hip dislocation: feasibility, reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity (correlation with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Oxford Hip Score, Short Form 12, and University of California, Los Angeles activity scale). We calculated floor and ceiling effects taking the minimal detectable change into account. RESULTS: The activities of daily living subscale of the HOS-D could be scored in all cases and the sport subscale in all but one. The HOS-D scores were highly reproducible with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94 for the activities of daily living subscale and 0.89 for the sport subscale. Internal consistency was confirmed by Cronbach α values >0.90 for both subscales. Correlation coefficients with the other measures ranged from -0.08 (Mental Component Scale of Short Form 12) to -0.90 (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index function subscale). CONCLUSIONS: The HOS-D is a reliable and valid self-assessment tool for patients undergoing surgical femoroacetabular impingement treatment. By use of the HOS, comparisons between studies and treatment regimens involving either German- or English-speaking patients are now possible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, testing of previously developed diagnostic criteria in a series of consecutive patients with universally applied gold standard.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".