American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Lower Limb Outcomes Assessment Instruments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed an array of outcomes assessment instruments designed for the efficient collection of outcomes data from patients of all ages with musculoskeletal conditions in all body regions. The Lower Limb Instruments were developed through a process of literature review, consensus-building, and field-testing. METHODS: The instruments were distributed to a total of 290 subjects in twenty orthopaedic practices throughout the United States and Canada. Of the 290 patients, seventy each had a diagnosis in the categories of foot and ankle, sports/knee, and hip and knee and forty each had a diagnosis in the categories of trauma and rehabilitation. Retests to be taken twenty-four hours after the first test were distributed to subsamples of patients for each instrument. Seventy-one one-year follow-up questionnaires (twenty-five Sports/Knee, twenty-five Foot and Ankle, sixteen Hip and Knee, and five Lower Limb Core instruments) were returned. RESULTS: The Lower Limb Core Scale and the Hip and Knee Core Scale, each consisting of seven items addressing pain, stiffness and swelling, and function, performed at an acceptable level. Additional Sports/Knee and Foot and Ankle Modules proved to have internal and retest reliability of 0.80 or better, comparable with the values for well-established measures such as the Short Form-36 (SF-36). All of the new scales were moderately to strongly correlated with other measures of pain and function, such as physician ratings, the SF-36, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Seventy-one patients provided follow-up information for the analysis of sensitivity to change. The Lower Limb Core was found to contribute independently to the prediction of the transition score based on the patient and physician assessments of change. CONCLUSIONS: The AAOS Lower Limb Instruments for outcomes assessment are highly reliable and are correlated with other measures for similar constructs. They are also sensitive to change in patient status. The Lower Limb Core Scale may be used with attribution of pain either to the lower limb or to a specific joint or side without sacrificing reliability. Combined with the SF-36, the AAOS outcomes assessment instruments comprehensively and efficiently measure outcomes in orthopaedic patients with lower-limb conditions.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".