Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Values in Asymptomatic and Arthritic Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this study was to determine whether an electronic, multicenter data collection system could be used to establish normal population reference values for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). The secondary aim was to investigate differences in asymptomatic HOOS and WOMAC values reported in 2 geographically distinct English-speaking countries and compare these with a symptomatic arthritic patient cohort. A total of 552 participants were recruited. Asymptomatic Australian and Canadian cohorts were compared; combined asymptomatic cohorts were compared with an arthritic cohort. There was a statistically significant association between age and asymptomatic HOOS (P<.0001) and WOMAC (P<.0001) values; as age increased, values worsened. Females had worse HOOS and WOMAC values (P<.0001). When compared with age- and sex-matched asymptomatic participants, arthritic participants had worse scores (P<.0001). Asymptomatic Australians had a statistically significant 3.8% better (higher) HOOS (P<.0001) in all age groups (P<.0001). When compared with age- and sex-matched asymptomatic participants, younger arthritic participants reported worse activities of daily living and sports and recreation HOOS values. This observational study established an electronic HOOS and WOMAC patient-reported outcome measures database of asymptomatic individuals in 2 geographically distinct countries. An asymptomatic control group should be sourced from the same country of origin as the proposed study. Factors that should be considered when recording the HOOS and WOMAC include age, sex, geographic location, history of an inactive hip problem, contralateral hip disease, and active knee, ankle, or foot problems. [Orthopedics. 2019; 42(2):e216-e224.].
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".