Validation for the Reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Function Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the criterion validity, repeatability, and the missing value protocol of the reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function scale ('reduced scale'). METHODS: Three separate studies were performed: a cross-over study to compare the full- and reduced-scale scores in 66 UK patients for validity, a test-retest study for repeatability in 103 Australian patients, and a study for the missing value protocol of the reduced-scale questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between scores for the full- and reduced-scale questionnaires in both cross-over and test-retest studies. For the missing value protocol of the reduced-scale questionnaire, when 3 or more of the 7 items were missing, the patient's response was regarded as invalid and the sub-scale score was eliminated from further analysis; when 2 or fewer items were missing, the mean value of the sub-scale was substituted for the missing values. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced-scale questionnaire retains excellent validity and repeatability. Its use is recommended along with the original pain dimension in studies of total joint replacement.
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 | 0.038 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".