MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2806690770 · doi:10.15226/2374-6904/5/1/00167

Standardized Patient Reported Outcomes Do Not Capture Functional Deficits of Patients Following Contemporary Total Knee Replacement: Descriptive Study.

2018· article· en· W2806690770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashley Y Disantis, Sara R. Piva, James J. Irrgang

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsWOMACPhysical therapyMedicineStair climbingOsteoarthritisKneelingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationActivities of daily living

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The physical function subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC-PF) is widely used and endorsed by professional organizations for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Its use post total knee replacement (TKR) has been challenged as it may not represent the high level of functional performance that is expected by patients who undergo contemporary TKR with more advanced techniques and care pathways. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the items of the WOMAC-PF reflect the activity limitations identified by patients following TKR. DESIGN: Data for this descriptive study were obtained from baseline assessments of a randomized clinical trial comparing exercise interventions following TKR. METHODS: Participants completed the WOMAC-PF and identified activity limitations in the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) in the same day. The responses to both questionnaires were compared. RESULTS: This investigation included 50 participants (36 women, mean age 63.8±6.7). The WOMAC-PF failed to capture 50% of the activity limitations identified by participants in the COPM. These activities included kneeling, squatting, carrying/lifting items, strength/endurance exercise, floor transfer, lower extremity exercise, walking up/down hills, yard work, climbing a ladder, driving, managing the environment, carrying objects up/down stairs, gait initiation, balance, and going up/down curbs. Only one activity on the WOMAC-PF (going shopping) was not identified by participant responses on the COPM. LIMITATIONS: Participants were included if they had TKR between 3 and 6 months prior, which may limit generalizability to those immediately after TKR, and the study sample was relatively small. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals following TKR, the WOMAC-PF failed to represent a subset of higher level, more physically demanding activities that were identified as important by patients following TKR.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→