Preoperative Performance of the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in Patients With Rotator Cuff Pathology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System upper extremity item bank (PROMIS UE) and physical function computerized adaptive test (PROMIS PF CAT) in patients with rotator cuff (RC) pathology at their preoperative clinic visit. METHODS: Patient data were collected from January 2015 to September 2015. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of RC pathology were prospectively enrolled at the time of their surgical indication for RC repair. Each patient was asked to fill out the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment Form, Marx Shoulder Activity Scale, Short Form 36 Health Survey Physical Function and General Health (SF-36 PF and GH), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), PROMIS PF CAT, and PROMIS UE. Correlation was defined as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.7), good (0.4-0.6), and poor (0.2-0.3). RESULTS: Patient data were collected from January 2015 to September 2015. No patients were excluded from participation in the study. In 82 patients with preoperative RC pathology, the PROMIS UE showed excellent correlation with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment Form (r = 0.77, P < .01), WORC (r = 0.73, P < .01), and the EQ-5D (r = 0.73, P < .01); there was excellent-good correlation with the SF-36 PF (r = .66, P < .01) and PROMIS PF CAT (r = .70, P < .01). The PROMIS PF CAT showed excellent correlation with the SF-36 PF (r = 0.77, P < .01); there was excellent-good correlation with EQ-5D (r = 0.65, P < .01) and WORC (r = 0.61, P < .01). There were no significant floor or ceiling effects using the PROMIS UE item bank or PROMIS PF CAT. CONCLUSIONS: We report that in a patient population with preoperative RC pathology, the PROMIS UE and PROMIS CAT are valid patient-reported outcome alternatives that have high correlation with traditional shoulder and upper extremity patient-reported outcomes. We find a decreased question burden using the PROMIS PF CAT. We find no significant floor or ceiling effects present in the PROMIS UE or PROMIS PF CAT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective diagnostic study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".