Chinese translation and validation of the Oxford Knee Scale for patients with knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxford Knee Scale (OKS) is a commonly used instrument to assess the symptoms and functional status in people with knee osteoarthritis. However, a Chinese version of this scale is not yet available. The objective of this study was to translate the OKS into Chinese and validate the Chinese version of OKS. The Chinese OKS was translated from the original English version following the recommendations of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. One hundred Chinese reading patients with knee osteoarthritis were recruited from local hospitals and physiotherapy clinics. Psychometric properties were evaluated in terms of test–retest reliability and internal consistency. Convergent validity was examined by Spearman rank correlation coefficient tests by comparing its score with the validated Chinese version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Health Outcome Survey Short Form-36. Chinese OKS demonstrated excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.88). Cronbach α of individual questions was > 0.7. Strong correlation was found between the Chinese OKS and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (ρ > 0.553, p < 0.001). Fairly strong negative correlation was also found between Chinese OKS and Health Outcome Survey Short Form-36 (ρ = −0.273 to −0.666, p < 0.05). The Chinese translated version of OKS is a reliable and valid instrument for clinical evaluation in Chinese reading patients with knee osteoarthritis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".