Comparing the AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), and the Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment (SODA) are assessments of hand function. Investigation of psychometric properties, administration, acceptability, and content of an assessment add strength to the findings of research and treatment. We evaluated the validity and reliability of the AUSCAN, MHQ, and the SODA for assessing disability in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Sixty-two patients with RA completed the AUSCAN (visual analog scale version), the MHQ, and the SODA. Seventeen patients repeated the assessments within one week. RESULTS: The assessments recorded high variability within the sample of 62 patients with RA. The AUSCAN and MHQ provided patient and context-specific information, while the SODA provided more impairment information that could be readily compared between patients. Seventeen patients were tested twice within 5 days, showing good reliability of all assessments. Unlike the MHQ, AUSCAN and SODA do not provide information about individual hands or hand dominance. The physical function scales of the AUSCAN and the SODA were related (r = 0.81), and the AUSCAN and MHQ pain scales were related (r = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Clinicians and researchers should decide whether impairment, ability, or handicap outcome is the goal of assessment, and whether bilateral function or the function of one hand is of interest before choosing a hand assessment. The AUSCAN and MHQ are valid and reliable for assessment of hand disability in patients with RA, and they allow the patients to answer questions about their home environment. The SODA is also valid and reliable for assessing disability in a clinical situation that cannot be generalized to the home.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".