MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990543344 · doi:10.1002/art.11110

Promising outcome of a hip school for patients with hip dysfunction

2003· article· en· W1990543344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Klässbo, Gerry Larsson, Karin Harms‐Ringdahl

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLandstinget i VärmlandReumatikerförbundetKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsMedicineWOMACPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisQuality of life (healthcare)Orthopedic surgeryHip painNottingham Health ProfileSurgeryAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in an exploratory study, a hip school led by physical therapists for patients with hip dysfunction including pain. METHODS: Physicians in primary care and orthopedic units consecutively recruited patients by residential area to a treatment group (T group; n = 77) and a control group (C group; n = 68), mean age 61.8 years, 59 men, 86 women. Ninety-nine of the 145 subjects had radiologic hip osteoarthritis. Outcome measures were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). RESULTS: After hip school (6 months) the T group showed greater reduction on the subscales of pain and activity limitations (WOMAC) than the C group. The subscales sleep disturbances, pain, and physical mobility (NHP) showed improvement for the T group compared with at start. The results for the T group persisted after an additional 6 months. CONCLUSION: A hip school may reduce pain and activity limitations and improve health-related quality of life for patients with hip dysfunction including pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207