MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005006222 · doi:10.1080/000164700317411861

Translation and validation of the Oxford-12 Item Knee Score for use in Sweden

2000· article· en· W2005006222 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Dunbar, Otto Robertsson, Leif Ryd, Lars Lidgren

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica Scandinavica · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTranslation (biology)Physical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Oxford-12 Item Knee Score is a recently developed and validated patient-completed outcome measure designed specifically for use with knee arthroplasty in the United Kingdom. We have translated this questionnaire into Swedish and tested the validity and reliability of the translated version in a cross-sectional study by a postal survey to 1,200 randomly selected patients from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Swedish versions of the WOMAC, Nottingham Health Profile, SF-36, SF-12, and the Sickness Impact Profile were employed in the validation process. We also tested feasibility and patient-burden parameters. The translated version appeared to be linguistically and culturally equivalent to the original version with good validity and reliability. Indirect measures of responsiveness indicated that it is at least as responsive to relevant knee arthroplasty patient states as the previously validated Swedish version of the WOMAC. Application of the translated questionnaire to this population is feasible with minimal imposed patient-burden. The Swedish translation of the Oxford-12 Item Knee Score is a valid and reliable tool for outcome studies on knee arthroplasty patients.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations90
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Orthopaedica ScandinavicaSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207