MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111465585 · doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keh081

The reliability, validity and responsiveness of an aggregated locomotor function (ALF) score in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee

2004· article· en· W2111465585 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Christopher J. McCarthy

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of rheumatology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsWOMACPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisMedicineReliability (semiconductor)Standard errorPhysical medicine and rehabilitationKappaStairsSample size determinationConcurrent validityPsychometricsStatisticsMathematicsClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The aggregated locomotor function (ALF) score, a simple measure of observed locomotor function, using timed walking, stairs and transfers, was developed and evaluated for intra-tester reliability, criterion-related validity and responsiveness in a sample of patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Patients with knee osteoarthritis (n = 214) were recruited for inclusion in a randomized controlled trial investigating two methods of exercise provision. Before treatment, patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short Form 36 health survey (SF-36) questionnaires and were timed whilst performing an 8 m walk, ascending and descending a set of gymnasium stairs and completing a test of transferring in and out of a chair. A group of 15 patients also undertook a replicate test-retest reliability study of the above outcome measures. Standardized response means were calculated for the ALF, WOMAC and SF-36 from data from the clinical trial. RESULTS: The ALF takes 10 min to administer and demonstrated excellent intra-tester reliability, with excellent intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) statistics (ICC(2,k) 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99), and low standard error of measurement (0.86 s) and smallest detectable difference (9.5%) values. Criterion-related validity with the physical function dimensions of the WOMAC and SF-36 was good, with correlation coefficients of 0.59 and - 0.53 respectively. Standardized response means were higher for the ALF (0.49) than for both the WOMAC (0.39) and the SF-36 (0.12). CONCLUSIONS: This work has demonstrated that the ALF can be used as a measure of physical function status and as a means of quantifying treatment response. The measure offers a simple and convenient outcome in the assessment and treatment of locomotor dysfunction. The ALF score is a reliable, valid and responsive outcome measure over 12 months and can be recommended for use in the evaluation of patients with knee osteoarthritis.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of rheumatologySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207