CONCURRENT VALIDITY OF PATIENT RATING SCALES IN ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOME AFTER ROTATOR CUFF REPAIR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the concurrent validity of four questionnaires in the assessment of outcome after rotator cuff repair. Sixty-two patients, who were at least two years post-rotator-cuff repair, completed three upper extremity scales: the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and a measure of general health status (SF-36). Internal and external rotation ranges of motion and isometric strength were measured. Pearson correlations were used to evaluate the construct whereby scores should be related to the severity of measured impairments. One-way ANOVA was used to determine the ability of the questionnaires to discriminate between groups expected to have different outcomes based on measured impairment or worker's compensation status. The upper extremity questionnaires demonstrated similar response distributions and were highly correlated (0.88 < r < 0.91). The response distribution of the SF-36 was different from the other scales and its correlation with them was moderate (0.58 < r < 0.75). The upper extremity measures demonstrated better correlations with measured impairments (0.18 < r < 0.56) than the SF-36 (0 < r < 0.40). All the questionnaires were able to discriminate between levels of impairment and worker's compensation status. This study supported the validity of upper extremity scales to measure cuff-related disability and suggests that the use of both specific and general health measures provides a more comprehensive evaluation of patient outcome.
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 | 0.023 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".