Validity and responsiveness of the Dutch McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Questionnaire (MACTAR) in patients with osteoarthritis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the content and construct validity as well as the responsiveness of the Dutch MACTAR in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or the knee. Relevance: Monitoring a patients physical function in a patient-specific way. Participants: 172 (77% female) patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or the knee, mean age 64.6 years (7.9). Methods: The MACTAR comprises two parts: a transitional part and a status part. Content validity was investigated by matching patient-elicited activities to items of the ‘Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index’ (WOMAC) and the ‘Medical Outcome Survey Short Form 36’ (SF-36). Analysis: Construct validity was determined by correlating MACTAR-outcomes to outcomes on the WOMAC and SF-36. Responsiveness was investigated by correlating MACTAR,WOMAC and SF-36 change scores and by sighting a Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (ROC) curve. Results: Eleven percent of the 894 identified impaired activities by 172 patients, could not be matched with items of the WOMAC nor SF-36. Investigated correlations (rs) regarding the MACTAR-transitional part varied between .305 and −.327. Correlations concerning the status part differed between .423 and .430. Changes cores were correlated comparably. The area under the ROC-curve comprised .779. Conclusions: Our results suggest that the MACTAR exhibits moderate construct validity and reasonable responsiveness in a population of patients with OA of the hip or the knee. Furthermore, the MACTAR is potentially better able to detect changes over time in activities which are important to the individual patient than other tools measuring physical function (WOMAC, SF-36) can do. Implications: Therefore, the MACTAR could be used to detect patient-specific important impaired activities complemented to a disease-specific measurement tool. (aut.ref.)
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 | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".