The AUSCAN and PRWHE Demonstrate Comparable Internal Consistency and Validity in Patients With Early Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) and Patient-Rated Wrist-Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) are 2 patient-related outcome measures to assess pain and disability in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the AUSCAN and PRWHE in a large-scale, longitudinal cohort of patients with early thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) OA. METHODS: We obtained baseline data on 135 individuals (92 with early CMC OA participants and 43 asymptomatic controls) and at follow-up (year 1.5) on 83 individuals. We assessed the internal consistency using Cronbach alpha, and construct and criterion validity using other pain scales and objective measures of strength, respectively. We also examined the correlation between the AUSCAN and PRWHE and correlation coefficients at baseline and follow-up, as well as the correlation between changes in these instruments over the follow-up period. RESULTS: Internal consistency was high for both AUSCAN and PRWHE totals and subscales (Cronbach α > 0.70). Both instruments demonstrated construct validity compared with the Verbal Rating Scale ( r = 0.52-0.60, P < .01), an assessment of pain, and moderate criterion validity compared with key pinch and grip strength ( r = -.24 to -.33, P < .05). These instruments were highly correlated with each other at baseline and follow-up time points ( r = 0.76-.94, P < .01), and changes in a patient's total scores over time were also correlated ( r = 0.83, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The AUSCAN and PRWHE are both valid assessments for pain and/or disability in patients with early thumb CMC 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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".