Self-Reported Functional Status as Predictor of Observed Functional Capacity in Subjects with Early Osteoarthritis of the Hip and Knee: A Diagnostic Study in the CHECK Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) may experience functional limitations in work settings. In the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee study (CHECK) physical function was both self-reported and measured performance-based, using Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE). Relations between self-reported scores on SF-36 and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Arthritis Index, function scales) and FCE performance were studied, and their diagnostic value for clinicians in predicting observed physical work limitations was assessed. METHODS: Ninety-two subjects scored physical function on SF-36 (scale 0-100, 100 indicating the best health level) and WOMAC (scale 0-68, 68 indicates maximum restriction) and performed the FCE. Correlations were calculated between all scores. Cross-tables were constructed using both questionnaires as diagnostic tests to identify work limitations. Subjects lifting <22.5 kg on the FCE-test 'lifting-low' were labeled as having physical work limitations. Diagnostic aspects at different cut-off scores for both questionnaires were analysed. RESULTS: Statistically significant correlations (Spearman's rho 0.34-0.49) were found between questionnaire scores and lifting and carrying tests. Results of a diagnostic cross-table with cut-off point <60 on SF-36 'physical functioning' were: sensitivity 0.34, specificity 0.97 and positive predictive value (PV+) 0.95. Cut-off point > or =21 on WOMAC 'function' resulted in sensitivity 0.51, specificity 0.88 and PV+ 0.88. CONCLUSION: Low self-reported function scores on SF-36 and WOMAC diagnosed subjects with limitations on the FCE. However, high scores did not guarantee performance without physical work limitations. These results are specific to the tested persons with early OA, in populations with a different prevalence of limitations, different diagnostic values will be found. FCE may be indicated to help clinicians to assess actual work capacity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".