Analysis of factors affecting the quality of life of patients with coxarthrosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Osteoarthritis constitutes one of the main reasons fora lower quality of life among theelderly. The aim of the work was to analyse factors affecting functional skills in the group ofpatients with coxarthrosis. Material and methods The study was conducted on 50 patients with diagnosed coxarthrosis (M16.0). Patients were selected in purposive samplingand underwent one examination. The quality of life was assessed with the use of EQ-5D-3L instrument and 36-Item Short FormHealth Survey (SF-36). Pain intensity was evaluated with the use of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)and the authors’ own questionnaire.The research was carried out at the Rehabilitation Ward of the 3 rd Municipal Hospital in Lodz. The results were analysed in six age groups:50-55, 55-60, 60-65, 65-70, 70-75 and 75-80. Results Coxarthrosis was prevalent in the group of patients aged 75-80 (13 participants). Patients aged 50-55 subjectively assessed their quality of life at the highest level. Body mass index (BMI) did not affect the quality of life or pain intensity. Conclusions The quality of life of patients with coxarthrosis is related to age but it does not correlate with body mass.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".