The Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research (OFAR) Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.011 |
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".