Quantifying Patient-Reported Disability and Health While Waiting for Bunion Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with hallux valgus progress to experiencing pain and loss of function that requires corrective surgery when nonoperative treatments fail. The primary goal of this study was to measure changes in participants' health while patients waited for their operative correction. METHODS: Patients were prospectively recruited to complete a number of patient-reported outcome measures preoperatively. Baseline data collection was initiated in October 2014, and participants' second surveys were returned by August 2017. The setting of the study was Vancouver, Canada. There were 80 participants in the study. The participation rate among eligible patients was 52.7%. RESULTS: The average wait time for surgery exceeded 8 months, with a mean wait of 35.7 weeks. Baseline pain among participants was high. Only in the domain of foot- and ankle-related quality of life was the duration of wait time associated with participants' change in health. The other 4 domains of foot function remained stable over the preoperative period. CONCLUSION: Preoperative health in this study was consistent with other research showing high pain and compromised foot function among patients failing nonoperative therapies for treatment of hallux valgus. This study found high pain and compromised foot function among patients waiting for hallux valgus surgery but only minor relationships between participants' duration of wait time for operative correction of the first metatarsophalangeal joint and changes in patient-reported outcome scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".