MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312707019 · doi:10.1177/1071100714544157

The Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research (OFAR) Network

2014· article· en· W2312707019 on OpenAlex
Kenneth J. Hunt, Ian J. Alexander, Judith F. Baumhauer, James W. Brodsky, Christopher P. Chiodo, Timothy R. Daniels, W. Hodges Davis, Jon Deland, Scott J. Ellis, Man Hung, Susan N. Ishikawa, L. Daniel Latt, Phinit Phisitkul, Nelson F. SooHoo, Arthur Yang, Charles L. Saltzman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFoot & Ankle International · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Board of Orthopaedic SurgeryAmerican Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society
KeywordsMedicineAnkleFoot (prosody)Physical therapyOrthopedic surgeryPatient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information SystemPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryComputerized adaptive testingPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing need for orthopaedic practitioners to measure and collect patient-reported outcomes data. In an effort to better understand outcomes from operative treatment, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) established the Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research (OFAR) Network, a national consortium of foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons. We hypothesized that the OFAR Network could successfully collect, aggregate, and report patient-reported outcome (PRO) data using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). METHODS: Ten sites enrolled consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for 1 of 6 foot/ankle disorders. Outcome instruments were collected preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively using the PROMIS online system: Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), Foot Function Index (FFI), and PROMIS physical function (PF) and pain computerized adaptive tests (CAT). During the 3-month period, 328 patients were enrolled; 249 (76%) had completed preoperative patient-reported outcomes data and procedure-specific data. Of these, 140 (56%) also completed 6-month postoperative patient- reported outcomes data. RESULTS: Ankle arthritis and flatfoot demonstrated consistently worse preoperative scores. Five of 6 disorders showed significant improvement at 6 months on PF CAT and FAAM, 4 of 6 showed improvement on pain interference CAT, and no disorders showed improvement on FFI. Ankle arthritis and flatfoot demonstrated the greatest magnitude of change on most patient-reported outcomes scales. CONCLUSION: We were able to enroll large numbers of patients in a short enrollment period for this preliminary study. Data were easily aggregated and analyzed. Substantial loss of follow-up data indicates a critical area requiring further effort. The AOFAS OFAR Network is undergoing expansion with goals to ultimately facilitate large, prospective multicenter studies and optimize the quality and interpretation of available outcome instruments for the foot and ankle population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it