The Patient-Specific Functional Scale: Its Reliability and Responsiveness in Patients Undergoing a Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A prospective cohort study, with assessments before, at 3 months after, and at 12 months after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). OBJECTIVES: To determine and compare the responsiveness and reliability of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients undergoing a TKA. BACKGROUND: Reliable and valid measurement instruments are important to measure functional status. The PSFS is frequently used in several patient populations, but its methodological characteristics in a population of patients with TKA in the perioperative phases of surgery are unknown. METHODS: The PSFS, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and global perceived effect (GPE) were administered at 3 time points in 150 patients undergoing a TKA. Correlations, effect sizes, and standardized response means were calculated. The PSFS was administered twice to assess its reliability in terms of intraclass correlation coefficients and limits of agreement. RESULTS: The correlation coefficients between the PSFS and WOMAC at 3 months and 1 year were 0.41 and 0.48, respectively; those between the PSFS and GPE were -0.37 and -0.55, respectively. The effect sizes of the PSFS at 3 months and 1 year were 1.71 and 2.89, respectively; those of the WOMAC were 1.45 and 1.64, respectively. The standardized response means of the PSFS at 3 months and 1 year were 0.96 and 1.48, respectively; those of the WOMAC were 1.28 and 1.37, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficients ranged between 0.73 and 0.86. The systematic error was between 0.12 and 0.54. The limits of agreement ranged from ±2.17 to ±2.72. CONCLUSION: The reliability of the PSFS is good. Its responsiveness is high, especially in the long term. However, the PSFS cannot be used interchangeably with the WOMAC in the immediate postoperative period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".