MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2402160598

Translation and validation of the Turkish version of the arthritis impact measurement scales 2 in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

2005· article· en· W2402160598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Funda Atamaz, Simin Hepgüler, Jülide Öncü

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisConstruct validityWOMACTurkishVisual analogue scaleReliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationClinical psychologyPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To translate and evaluate the validity, reliability, and acceptability of Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales 2 (AIMS2) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Turkish AIMS2 was developed using the "translation-backward translation" method and administered to 141 patients with symptomatic knee OA. Reliability was assessed by test-retest and internal consistency analyses. Construct validity was assessed by correlating the AIMS2 scales with Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, patient's and physician's global assessment, range of motion (ROM), and Kellgren-Lawrence grading system. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.75-0.98, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients from 0.72-0.90. Significant moderate to high correlations were obtained between AIMS2 scales (except social activities and support from family and friends scales) and most of the other clinical measurements. CONCLUSION: Turkish AIMS2 is a valid, reliable, and acceptable instrument in patients with symptomatic knee OA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→