MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885216414

퇴행성 슬관절염 환자에 대한 한글판 WOMAC Index의 신뢰도와 타당성에 관한 연구

2009· article· ko· W2885216414 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
고태성, Sung‐Ryeol Kim

Bibliographic record

Venue한방재활의학과학회지 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Venom Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACIntraclass correlationCronbach's alphaConstruct validityOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyReliability (semiconductor)MedicinePearson product-moment correlation coefficientCorrelation coefficientPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychometricsStatisticsMathematicsClinical psychologyPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.007

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.363 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue한방재활의학과학회지Same topicHealthcare and Venom ResearchFrench-language works237,207