Evaluating the reproducibility of the short version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (Short-WORC) prospectively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, a shorter version of the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (Short-WORC) was created to reduce patient response burden. However, it has yet to be evaluated prospectively for reproducibility (reliability and agreement) and floor and ceiling effects. METHODS: ) to assess test-retest reliability. To evaluate parameters of agreement, the standard error of measurement, minimal detectable change (based on a 90% confidence interval), and Bland-Altman plots were used. RESULTS: ) was 0.87. The agreement parameter was 8.4 for the standard error of measurement of agreement, and the limits of agreement fell within the range of -22.9 to 23.8. The Short-WORC is reliable over time and reflective of a patient's true score after an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The Short-WORC demonstrated strong reproducibility parameters and can be used for patients with rotator cuff disorders. The Short-WORC indicated no systematic bias and was reflective of the true score of both individual patients and groups of patients at 2 time points.
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 | 0.001 | 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".