MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reliability and Validity of Hip Adduction Strength to Measure Disease Severity in Posterior Pelvic Pain Since Pregnancy

2002· article· en· W2067882766 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSpine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis was performed in patients with posterior pelvic pain since pregnancy (PPPP). The strength of adduction of the hips was measured and compared with the scores of commonly used disease severity measures of lumbopelvic pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability and validity of using hip adduction strength as measure of disease severity in patients with PPPP. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Various tools are used to measure disease severity in PPPP; there is still a need for simple tests with high reliability and validity. METHODS: Intra- and intertester reliability of hip adduction strength measurement was assessed in two small groups of women with PPPP. Validity of hip adduction strength to measure disease severity was investigated in a group of 200 patients with PPPP by comparing the test scores with the medical history, scores on self-reported scales on disability, pain, and tiredness, pain provocation tests, and the active straight leg raise test. Responsiveness of hip adduction strength was assessed in a group of 75 patients with PPPP. Global impression of improvement, scored by the patient, was used as criterion standard. The responsiveness of the hip adduction strength was expressed as the standardized response mean and was compared with the responsiveness of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. RESULTS: The intratester reliability for measuring hip adduction strength and the intraclass correlation coefficient were both 0.79. The intertester reliability for measurement of adduction strength and the intraclass correlation coefficient were also both 0.79. Hip adduction strength correlated as expected with all disease severity measures. Responsiveness of the hip adduction strength was large (standardized response mean = 0.93) and slightly less than that of the Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale (standardized response mean = 1.20). CONCLUSION: Hip adduction strength can be recommended to measure disease severity in PPPP, especially to describe groups of patients and to evaluate the course of the disease in groups as well as in individual patients. Decreased hip adduction strength appears to be caused by the inability to use the hip muscles rather than by weakness of the muscles.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.260 · 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