Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last two decades hip arthroscopy has become a major focus of interest of hip orthopaedics in young adults with nonarthtitic hip pain. Patient-reported outcome measures should serve as a golden standard in the assessment of arthroscopic surgery whereas the patients' perspective and health-related quality of life are the best predictors of the outcome after hip arthroscopy. In this review paper commonly used hip outcome scores are presented, those being: modified Harris Hip Score – mHHS, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index - WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score - OHS, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score - HOOS, Nonarthritic Hip Score - NAHS, Hip Outcome Score - HOS, The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score - HAGOS and 33-item International Outcome Tool - iHOT-33. PubMed was searched and checked for articles that assessed clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. The questionnaire most frequently used so far is mHHS; it has been used in 77 papers. Future recommendations are to use questionnaires specifically designed for younger and more athletic patients that better reflect patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy, such as HOOS, NAHS, HOS, HAGOS and iHOT-33.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".