St. Patrick's celebration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HOOS was developed as an extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities' Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire for measuring symptoms and functional limitations related to the hip(s) of patients with osteoarthritis. To determine the validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) vis-à-vis hip osteoarthritis, the original HOOS was translated into a Thai version of HOOS, according to international recommendations. Patients with hip osteoarthritis (n = 57; 25 males) were asked to complete the Thai version of HOOS twice: once then again after a 3-week interval. The test-retest reliability was analyzed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Internal consistencies were analyzed using Cronbach's alpha, while the construct validity was tested by comparing the Thai HOOS with the Thai modified SF-36 and calculating the Spearman's rank correlation coefficients. The Thai HOOS produced good reliability (i.e., the ICC was greater than 0.9 in all five subscales). All of the Cronbach's alpha showed that the Thai HOOS had high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha greater than 0.8), especially for the pain and ADL subscales (0.89 and 0.90, respectively). The Spearman's rank correlation for all five subscales of the Thai HOOS had moderate correlation with the Bodily Pain subscale of the Thai SF-36. The pain subscale of the Thai HOOS had a high correlation with the Vitality and Social Function subscales of the Thai SF-36 (r = 0.55 and 0.54)-with which the symptom subscale had a moderate correlation. The Thai version of HOOS had excellent internal consistency, excellent test-retest reliability, and good construct validity. It can be used as a reliable tool for assessing quality of life for patients with hip osteoarthritis in Thailand.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".