The relationship between Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) and conventional objective outcome scales in patients with postoperative tibial plateau fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Patient-based outcome measures are actively utilized within the subjective health status and functional status of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between existing Knee Society Score(KSS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) and to evaluate their correlation with each other as well as to evaluate their measurement capabilities.Materials and Methods: In the study, we have retrospectively evaluated 43 healthy knees and 43 operated knees of a total of 43 patients with Schatzker type 2 and type 3 tibial plateau fractures that were treated surgically between July 2010 and March 2016 in our clinic. Patients were evaluated weekly with SF-36 General Physical Functional Score and also with the WOMAC, KSS and KOOS scoring systems, which are scoring systems that are used to address specifically the problems with the knee joint. Result and Conclusion: The KSS Functional Score and the KOOS Daily Functional Score were found to be reliable for the functional evaluation of the knee joint. We believe that the numerical scoring system used by WOMAC Functional Scoring causes distraction and we believe that the measurement effectiveness is reduced as a result. As a result of this study, we think that we need to be very careful when selecting and using evaluation scales where the responses are first matched to numerical values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".