Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To investigate reliability and validity of Korean translation of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities(WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. Methods: The reliablity, construct validity of the Korean WOMAC Index in the patient of knee osteoarthritis was investigated. Test-retest reliability was quantified with pearson`s correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient. Internal consistency was quantified with Cronbach`s α. and construct validity with pearson`s correlation coefficient by correlating of the Visual Analog Scale(VAS). Results: Test-retest reliability of Korean WOMAC Index for pain was 0.76 to 0.95, stiffness was 0.89 to 0.94, and physical function was 0.71 to 0.95. Intraclass correlation coefficient for pain was 0.76 to 0.94, stiffness was 0.54 to 0.89, and physical function was 0.70 to 0.95. Internal consistency were 0.94 and 0.94 for the first and second time, respectively. Construct validity for pain was 0.79, for stiffness was 0.66, and physical function was 0.67. Conclusions: The Korean translation of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities(WOMAC) osteoarthritis index is reliable, valid assessment tool in knee osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".