Validation of a short form of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale in hip and knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A short version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function scale has recently been developed to enhance the applicability of the scale in routine practice and clinical research for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis. The goal of the present study was to validate this short form. METHODS: We conducted a prospective 4-week cohort study of 1,036 outpatients. Performance on the WOMAC function long form (LF) and short form (SF) was compared. Agreement between responses on the 2 forms was examined according to a Bland-Altman plot. Responsiveness to change (by standardized response mean [SRM]), reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) were computed for both forms. Construct validity was assessed based on functional impairment as measured on a numerical rating scale. RESULTS: At baseline, 24% of patients who completed the WOMAC LF had missing data for at least 1 item as compared with only 6% of patients who completed the WOMAC SF. The mean WOMAC SF score was greater than the mean WOMAC LF score (mean +/- SD difference -4.3 +/- 4.8 on a 0-100 scale). SRMs were 0.61 and 0.73, ICCs were 0.76 and 0.68, and Cronbach's alphas were 0.93 and 0.85 for the WOMAC LF and SF, respectively. The 2 forms had comparable correlation with functional impairment. CONCLUSION: The WOMAC function short form has a low rate of missing data and is a responsive, reproducible, and valid measure. The mean SF score was 4 points higher than the mean LF score.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".