A self-administered pain severity scale for patellofemoral pain syndrome
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a scale for estimating the severity of patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) and to determine its reliability and validity. DESIGN: The PFPS Severity Scale (PSS) was developed following a literature search, input from clinicians, and pilot testing in people with PFPS. The final version of the instrument encompasses 10 statements regarding PFPS pain in a visual analogue format. Reliability and validity of the new scale were determined in a PFPS population. SETTING: All testing was performed at the Canadian Forces Base Kingston, Physiotherapy Department. SUBJECTS: Twenty-nine military subjects (7 female) between the ages of 20 and 48 (32 years +/- 8.9) with subjective and objective findings consistent with PFPS were recruited. Twenty-four of the participants (6 female, 31.8 years +/- 9.4) participated in the reliability phase of the study. METHODS: Reliability of the PSS was determined by comparing the scores obtained on two test days (24 hours apart). Convergent validity of the PSS was determined by comparing data from the PSS with two established knee scales: the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Osteoarthritis Index and the Hughston Foundation subjective knee scale. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was excellent (Spearman's rho = 0.95, p < 0.0001). The correlations between the PSS and the WOMAC and Hughston scales were strong (rho = 0.72 and 0.83, p < 0.001 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The PSS is reliable and has demonstrated convergent validity making it a useful tool for monitoring rehabilitative or surgical outcomes in clients with PFPS.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it