Preoperative Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in Patients with Meniscal Root Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to establish preoperative validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function computer adaptive test (PROMIS PF-CT) with legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for meniscal root tears (MRTs). Our study included 51 patients (52 knees) with MRT. Patients completed PROMIS PF-CT, Short Form 36 (SF-36 physical function, pain, general health, vitality, social function, emotional well-being, role limitations due to physical health, and role limitations due to emotional problems), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS pain, symptoms, activities of daily living [ADLs], sports, and quality of life [QOL]), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC pain, stiffness, and function), EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), and Knee Activity Scale questionnaires at their preoperative visit. Correlations between the PROMs listed above were evaluated along with floor and ceiling effects. Correlations were defined as weak (0.2–0.39), moderate (0.4–0.59), strong (0.6–0.79), and very strong (0.8–1.0). Preoperative data showed that PROMIS PF-CT has a strong correlation with SF-36 PF, KOOS-ADL, WOMAC-function, and EQ-5D; and moderate correlation with KOOS-sport, KOOS-pain, KOOS-symptoms, KOOS-QOL, WOMAC-pain, and WOMAC-stiffness. The Knee Activity Scale did not show any significant correlation with PROMIS PF-CT (r = 0.12, p = 0.2080). Of all the PROMs administered, PROMIS PF-CT demonstrated no floor or ceiling effects compared with 11.54% ceiling effect in KOOS-sports, and 5.77% floor effect in KOOS-ADL. On average, patients answered fewer PROMIS PF-CT questions (4.15 ± 0.72). PROMIS PF-CT is a valuable tool to assess preoperative patient-reported physical function in patients that may undergo MRT repair. It correlates strongly with other well-established PROMs. It also demonstrated no floor or ceiling effects and demonstrated a low test burden in our sample of 52 knees. This is a level III, prognostic retrospective comparative study.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".