Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome scoreAn extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To further develop the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC LK 3.0) for people with hip disability with or without hip osteoarthritis (OA), 52 subjects (median age 64 yrs, 35 women) answered a version of the Index with additional dimensions, twice, with a one-week interval. Reproducibility, percentage of zero scores (best possible scores), mean score of symptoms, and importance, were analyzed. This resulted in the Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS LK 1.1), a 39-item questionnaire with five separate sub-scales. There were higher median scores (more symptoms) for three of HOOS sub-scales Pain, Activity limitations--sport and recreation, and Hip-related Quality of life compared to those in the WOMAC, improving the ability to assess change in patients over time. The HOOS appears to be an evaluative instrument for assessing important self-rated hip problems for people with hip disability with/without hip OA, but additional studies are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".