Development of the HOOS <sub>global</sub> to Assess Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Preservation Procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The creation of a single patient-reported outcome (PRO) platform validated across hip preservation, osteoarthritis (OA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) populations may reduce barriers and streamline the routine collection of PROs in clinical practice. As such, the purpose of this study was to determine if augmenting the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR) with additional HOOS questions would result in a PRO platform that could be used across a wider spectrum of hip patient populations. Hypothesis: The HOOS, JR would demonstrate a notable ceiling effect, but by augmenting the HOOS, JR with additional HOOS questions, a responsive PRO platform could be created. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Using preoperative and postoperative HOOS responses from a sample of 304 patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), additional items were identified to augment the HOOS, JR. The psychometric properties of a newly created PRO tool (HOOS global ) were then compared with the HOOS, JR and other PRO instruments developed for patients with hip OA and/or undergoing THA. Results: By augmenting the HOOS, JR with 2 additional questions, the HOOS global was more responsive than all other included PRO tools and had significantly fewer maximum postoperative scores than the HOOS, JR ( P < .0001), HOOS–Physical Function Short form ( P < .0001), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index ( P = .02), University of California, Los Angeles activity scale ( P = .0002), and modified Harris Hip Score ( P = .04). The postoperative HOOS global score threshold associated with patients achieving the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was 62.5. Conclusion: The HOOS global is a valid and responsive PRO tool after PAO and may potentially provide the orthopaedic community with a PRO platform to be used across hip-related subspecialties. For patients undergoing PAO, a postoperative HOOS global score ≥62.5 was associated with patients achieving the PASS.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".