MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2553275362 · doi:10.2147/prom.s87048

Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index – the Danish version

2016· article· en· W2553275362 on OpenAlex
Sahar Moeini, Jeppe Vejlgaard Rasmussen, Tobias Wirenfelt Klausen, Stig Brorson

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Related Outcome Measures · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDanishRasch modelIndex (typography)OsteoarthritisPhysical therapyAlternative medicinePathologyWorld Wide WebStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index is a disease-specific, patient-reported, 19-question survey that measures the quality of life among patients with osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of this study was to validate the Danish version of WOOS for OA and fractures (FRs) using modern test theory. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 1,987 arthroplasties in 1,943 patients that were reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Register between 2006 and 2011. These included 847 OA and 1,140 FR cases. RESULTS: Principal component analysis indicated the unidimensionality of WOOS. The person reliabilities showed a floor-ceiling effect, indicating that a dichotomy was the best fit for the WOOS scale. For OA, WOOS showed good reliability (item and person reliability of 0.98 and 0.76) and good targeting, with a person mean of -0.56 logits. FR also showed good targeting (person mean of -0.08) and good reliability (item and person reliabilities of 1.00 and 0.86, respectively). All WOOS items fit well with the OA sample except items 5 and 6 (pertaining to grinding and the influence of weather). In addition, item 6 showed signs of degrading the scale with an outfit mean square of 2.46. Only item 6 showed a misfit for FR with no sign of scale degradation. The residual principal component analysis confirmed the unidimensionality of FR but not OA. Six items displayed clinically significant differential item functioning between OA and FR. CONCLUSION: Rasch analysis showed that WOOS had a good fit with the Rasch model when used as a dichotomous scale for OA and FR. However, the results were valid only when WOOS was divided into two categories with a threshold of 950 (50% of the maximum score). For the use of WOOS in future clinical research, we recommend that a dichotomous score be reported as a measure of clinical failure in OA and FR.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.246 · 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