Do hand outcome measures reflect cultural influences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the activities listed in DASH, MHQ, QuickDASH with the activities listed in Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in a Turkish patient population with hand injury. METHODS: COPM questionnaire was administered to 163 participants (61 male and 102 female; mean age 40.72 ± 13.70 years). The activities that were stated in COPM were categorized and checked whether they were present in DASH-T, MHQ, QuickDASH. RESULTS: The highest rated stated activities were "carrying a heavy object" (39.2%), "cleaning the house" (25.7%) and "writing" (15.9%). DASH reflects 30% whereas MHQ and QuickDASH reflect 16.32% and 10.2% of the problematic activities, respectively. CONCLUSION: None of three questionnaires have satisfactory results for reflecting the problematic activities among hand injured Turkish people. Open ended interviews should be irrevocable part of assessment process in order to describe a person-center treatment program.
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 | 0.023 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".