Comparison of the Original and Reduced Versions of the Berg Balance Scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index in Patients Following Hip or Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the original and reduced versions of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), as completed by patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with respect to their potential utility in clinical and research settings. METHOD: Patients with THA (n=26) or TKA (n=28) were evaluated before and after 5 to 7 weeks' participation in a home-based exercise programme. They were assessed using the original versions of the BBS and the WOMAC; scores for the reduced versions of the BBS and the WOMAC were extracted from the original versions. RESULTS: Good to excellent correlations (r≥0.80) were observed between the original and the reduced versions of the BBS and the WOMAC. The index of responsiveness, evaluated using standardized response means (SRM), was similar for the original and the reduced versions of the BBS and the WOMAC function sub-scale. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced versions of the BBS and the WOMAC provided similar information to the original versions and were equally responsive. These reduced versions comprise fewer questions and may be completed in considerably less time, which suggests that they may be advantageous for clinical and research use.
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 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".