Is self-reported improvement in osteoarthritis pain and disability reflected in objective measures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if self-reported improvements in pain and function correlate with improvement in objective measures of disease in osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Individuals with disabling hip/knee OA were assessed 7 years apart by questionnaire [sociodemographics, body mass index, and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores] and physical [range of motion (ROM), disease activity based on joint stress pain, erythema, warmth, effusion] and radiographic examination of the hips and knees (Kellgren-Lawrence grade). Changes over time were expressed as improved, unchanged, or worse based on a priori criteria. RESULTS: Of 69 eligible patients, 43 (64%) with a mean age of 76.3 years participated; 77% were female. For WOMAC scores, 25% and 19% reported improved pain and function, respectively. For joint ROM, disease activity, and radiographic grade, 0% to 30% of participants were improved. However, improvements in WOMAC scores were not associated with improvements in any of the other measures (r < 0.24 for all). CONCLUSION: One-quarter of participants reported significant improvements in WOMAC pain and disability after 7 years' followup. However, these improvements were not associated with similar improvements in joint ROM, disease activity, or radiographic grade. Greater understanding of the determinants of self-reported improvements in arthritis status, in particular the role of adaptation, is warranted.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".