Validation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Short Form (WOMAC-SF) and Its Relevance to Disability and Frailty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the validity of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Short Form (WOMAC-SF) for the assessment of musculoskeletal disorders.We evaluated whether WOMAC-SF correlated with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 12 (WHODAS-12) and Kaigo-Yobo questionnaires for assessing health-outcomes in Korea. Materials and Methods:This cross-sectional study used data from the Namgaram-2 cohort.WOMAC, WOMAC-SF, WHODAS-12, and Kaigo-Yobo questionnaires were administered to patients with musculoskeletal disorders, including radiology-confirmed knee osteoarthritis (RKOA), sarcopenia, and osteoporosis.The relationships among WOMAC-SF, WHODAS-12, and Kaigo-Yobo scores were analyzed by stepwise multiple regression analysis.Results: WOMAC-SF was associated with the WOMAC questionnaire.The results of confirmatory factor analysis for the hypothesized model with two latent factors, pain and function, provided satisfactory fit indices.WOMAC-SF pain and function were associated with RKOA.Kaigo-Yobo was associated with WOMAC-SF pain (B=0.140,p=0.001) and WOMAC-SF function (B=0.042,p=0.004).WHODAS-12 was associated with WOMAC-SF pain (B=0.679,p=0.003) and WOMAC-SF function (B=0.804,p<0.001).Conclusion: WOMAC-SF was validated for the evaluation of low extremity musculoskeletal disorders and health-related quality of life in a community-based population.Furthermore, we confirmed that WOMAC-SF were reflective of disability and frailty, which affect health outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".