The assessment of disability associated with osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disability (activity limitation) is an important and common health outcome for patients with osteoarthritis, making accurate measures essential. This paper explores self-report measures of activity limitation associated with osteoarthritis and reports on recent conceptual advances that impact on the measurement of activity limitation. RECENT FINDINGS: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the Short Form-36, the most commonly used measures to assess activity limitation, continue to be validated in osteoarthritis. There has been little consensus, however, about which measure to use across different types of osteoarthritis. While new measures have been developed to assess activity limitation, it remains unclear whether or not these are an improvement over existing measures. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health is becoming an important consideration. Commonly used measures do not map directly onto individual constructs of this classification, however a new measure for Japanese people with knee osteoarthritis was developed based on these constructs. SUMMARY: There have been significant developments in the conceptual approach to measuring activity limitation. Measures are needed that operationalize activity limitation as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (within or ideally across cultures), providing a common underlying construct for measures and hence facilitating comparability across studies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".