Preoperative Performance of PROMIS in Patients With Patellofemoral Malalignment and Chondral Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instrument has not yet been validated in patients undergoing operative treatment for patellofemoral malalignment and chondral disease. Purpose: To evaluate the PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Testing (PF CAT) instrument in a population of patients with patellofemoral malalignment and chondral disease relative to established patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Eligible patients were prospectively enrolled at the time of indication for surgery and completed 5 PRO instruments preoperatively: 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); Marx activity rating scale (Marx); EuroQol 5-dimension, 5-level instrument (EQ-5D-5L); and PROMIS PF CAT. Convergent and discriminant validity was assessed by measuring correlations between PROMIS PF CAT and other PRO instruments, including the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Strength of correlation was measured by use of Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: In total, 37 patients (40 knees) were enrolled in the study. All knees underwent Fulkerson osteotomy and concomitant cartilage procedure (29 chondroplasty, 6 allograft, 5 microfracture). Mean patient age was 33.4 years, and 73% of knees were in female patients. Correlations ( r) between PROMIS PF CAT and knee PRO instruments were as follows: SF-36 PF ( r = 0.80; P < .01); KOOS Pain ( r = 0.74; P < .01); KOOS Symptoms ( r = 0.47; P < .01); KOOS Quality of Life ( r = 0.68; P < .01); KOOS Sports and Recreation ( r = 0.72; P < .01); KOOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL) ( r = 0.80; P < .01); WOMAC Function ( r = 0.80; P < .01); WOMAC Pain ( r = 0.72; P < .01); WOMAC Stiffness ( r = 0.38; P = .02); Marx ( r = 0.22; P = .31); and EQ-5D-5L ( r = 0.72; P < .01). Neither floor nor ceiling effects were observed in PROMIS PF CAT or KOOS ADL. Mean (±SD) question burden with PROMIS PF CAT was 5.6 ± 0.6 questions. Conclusion: In patients with patellofemoral malalignment and chondral disease, PROMIS PF CAT is an efficient and reliable PRO instrument to preoperatively assess patients across a spectrum of knee function without floor or ceiling effects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".