Minimally Important Difference in the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score Among Patients Undergoing Hallux Valgus Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used as measures of effectiveness of interventions. To make the tools more useful, therapeutic thresholds known as minimally important differences have been developed. The objective of this study was to calculate minimally important differences for the domains of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score for hallux valgus surgery. METHODS: The study was based on a retrospective analysis of patients newly scheduled for bunion correction surgery and completing patient-reported outcomes between October 2013 and January 2018. This study used anchor- and distribution-based approaches to calculate the minimally important difference for the instrument's 5 domains. Confidence intervals were calculated for each approach. There were 91 participants included in the study. RESULTS: Using anchor- and distribution-based approaches, the minimally important difference for the pain domain ranged from 5.8 to 10.2, from 0.3 to 6.9 for the symptoms domain, 8.3 to 10.3 for the activities of daily living domain, 7.4 to 11.1 for the quality of life domain, and from 7.0 to 15.7 for the sports and recreation domain. Small differences in the activities of daily living domain may be more clinically important for patients with better function. DISCUSSION: The range of minimally important difference values for each domain indicate how the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score corresponded to bunion correction surgery. The sports and recreation domain showed considerable variability in the range of values and may be associated with the domain's lack of responsiveness. Overall, most minimally important difference values for the domains of FAOS ranged from above 4 to below 16. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".