Validity, factor structure, and clinical relevance of the AUSCAN osteoarthritis hand index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) Osteoarthritis Hand Index is a self-report assessment of pain, stiffness, and function in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Small studies have confirmed the reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of this measure, but the factor structure has not been examined. In this study, we examined the clinimetric properties and clinical relevance of the AUSCAN index in a large sample of patients with familial hand OA. METHODS: The study group comprised 700 patients (80% female, mean age 69 years) who were part of a study on the genetics of generalized OA. All patients had radiographic hand OA bilaterally. The analyses examined internal consistency, factor structure, and relationships of the subscales to grip and pinch strength and a single-item pain measure. RESULTS: Internal consistency was high for the total AUSCAN index and the subscales (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93-0.96). The AUSCAN function subscale had the strongest correlation with grip and pinch strength, and the pain subscale had the strongest correlation with the single-item pain measure, thus supporting the construct validity of these subscales. Factor analysis showed that all pain and function items clearly loaded on the subscale they were intended to measure. Each 1-unit increase in the AUSCAN function subscale was associated with a clinically relevant decrease in hand strength. CONCLUSION: The results of this study strongly confirm the clinimetric properties of the AUSCAN index, including the validity of specific subscales. Results indicate that the AUSCAN index can measure meaningful changes in pain, stiffness, and function.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".