Quantifying Self-Report Measures' Overestimation of Mobility Scores Postarthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-reports of function may systematically overestimate the ability of patients to move around postarthroplasty. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the magnitude of systematic differences in Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale (WOMAC-PF) scores before and after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) by referencing the values to Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) distances and Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG) times. DESIGN: This study was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. METHODS: The LEFS, WOMAC, 6MWT, and TUG were administered to 85 patients prearthroplasty and once at 9 to 13 weeks postarthroplasty. Regression analysis was applied using a robust error term for clustered data. With the self-report measures as dependent variables and performance measures, occasion (prearthroplasty or postarthroplasty), and performance measure-by-occasion as independent variables, 3 propositions were examined: (1) the relationship between self-report and performance measures is identical prearthroplasty and postarthroplasty (ie, regression lines are coincident); (2) the relationship differs between occasions, but is consistent (ie, regression lines are parallel); (3) the relationship is not consistent (ie, the regression lines are not parallel). RESULTS: For all analyses, the results supported the second proposition (ie, the relationship differed between occasions, but was consistent). The systematic differences varied by location of arthroplasty, but were similar for both performance tests. For the LEFS, the difference was approximately 11 points for patients who received TKA and 13 points for patients who received THA. For the WOMAC-PF, the difference was approximately 12 points for patients who received TKA and 19 points for patients who received THA. These differences exceed the minimal clinically important change for an individual patient. LIMITATIONS: The findings are specific to 9 to 13 weeks postarthroplasty. CONCLUSION: Dependence on scores of self-report measures alone, without knowledge of the magnitude of the identified systematic differences, will result in overestimating the ability of patients to move around postarthroplasty.
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".