Physical Functioning Before and After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Perception and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Self-report and performance-based measures of physical functioning in people before and after total hip arthroplasty seem to present different information. The relationship between these different measures is not well understood, and little information is available about changes in this relationship over time. The aims of this study were: (1) to determine the relationship between self-report and performance-based measures of physical functioning before and after total hip arthroplasty, (2) to assess the influence of pain on the relationship, and (3) to determine whether the relationship changes over time. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy-five subjects admitted for total hip arthroplasty were included and examined before and 6 and 26 weeks after surgery. The relationships between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical functioning subscale and walking speed and gait variability were examined by use of generalized estimating equations, which included interactions with time and the WOMAC pain subscale. RESULTS: The relationship between self-report and performance-based measures of physical functioning was poor. Pain appeared to have a considerable influence on self-reported physical functioning. The relationship did not appear to change over time. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The influence of pain on self-reported physical functioning serves as an explanation for the poor relationship between self-reported and performance-based physical functioning. When using a self-report measure such as the WOMAC, one should realize that it does not seem to assess the separate constructs--physical functioning and pain--that are claimed to be measured.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".