Evaluation of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in hand Fractures and Dislocations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generic upper extremity disability questionnaires utilize standardized items. The Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) allows the patient to identify specific self-reported items. This study evaluated the validity of the PSFS to assess outcome in patients with hand fractures or dislocations. METHODS: Adults with hand fractures or dislocations, who completed hand therapy between January 2012 and January 2013, were eligible for inclusion. At the initial and final assessment, each patient was asked to complete the PSFS. Each patient identified three items that were difficult or they were unable to perform, and the degree of difficulty was ranked from 0 to 10 (able to perform at pre-injury level). We excluded patients with an incomplete PSFS. Statistical analyses evaluated the relationships between the PSFS and the independent variables. RESULTS: There were 63 patients (37 men, 26 women); 21 of the 63 patients underwent surgery for fracture fixation. The mean duration of hand therapy treatment was 2.2 ± 1.4 months. The mean PSFS scores were as follows: initial 3.2 ± 2.2; final 8.1 ± 2.2. There was a significant improvement in PSFS scores from initial to final assessment (p < 0.001) and a moderate correlation (r = 0.3, p = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in PSFS scores between men and women or surgery and no surgery. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients with hand fractures or dislocations, the PSFS indicated significant improvement in function. Using items identified by the patient, the PSFS provides a valuable perspective of outcome and may be used in conjunction with generic disease-specific questionnaire for assessment of the upper extremity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".