Reference curves for the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index in the middle-aged Dutch population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim was to establish reference curves of the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN), a widely used questionnaire assessing hand complaints. Methods: Analyses were performed in a population-based sample, The Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study (n = 6671, aged 45-65 years). Factors associated with AUSCAN scores were analysed with ordered logistic regression, because AUSCAN data were zero inflated, dividing AUSCAN into three categories (0 vs 1-5 vs >5). Age- and sex-specific reference curves for the AUSCAN (range 0-60; higher is worse) were developed using quantile regression in conjunction with fractional polynomials. Observed scores in relevant subgroups were compared with the reference curves. Results: The median age was 56 [interquartile range (IQR): 50-61] years; 56% were women and 12% had hand OA according to ACR criteria. AUSCAN scores were low (median 1; IQR: 0-4). Reference curves where higher for women, and increased moderately with age: 95% percentiles for AUSCAN in men and women were, respectively, 5.0 and 12.3 points for a 45-year-old, and 15.2 and 33.6 points for a 65-year-old individual. Additional associated factors included hand OA, inflammatory rheumatic diseases, FM, socio-economic status and BMI. Median AUSCAN pain subscale scores of women with hand OA lay between the 75th and 90th centiles of the general population. Conclusion: AUSCAN scores in the middle-aged Dutch population were low overall, and higher in women than in men. AUSCAN reference curves could serve as a benchmark in research and clinical practice settings. However, the AUSCAN does not measure hand complaints specific for hand 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".