Discordance between self-reported and performance-based function among knee osteoarthritis surgical patients: Variations by sex and obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is currently no standardized method for measuring functional status in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients, despite that it is one of the top priorities when determining eligibility for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the current investigation was to identify factors associated with discordance between individual self-report and performance-based measures of function for obese and non-obese men and women with knee OA. METHODS: In a cohort of 727 knee OA patients scheduled for TKA, physical function prior to surgery was assessed with the self-reported physical function subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC-pf), and the performance-based Timed Up and Go (TUG). Data on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, knee pain intensity, symptomatic joint site count, and pain catastrophizing were collected via questionnaire. The primary outcome was the difference in rescaled score between a participant's self-report and performance-based measures of function. Multivariable linear regression stratified by sex and obesity status was used to identify factors associated with discordance. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 65.5 years and 55% were women. With younger age, self-reported scores indicated increasingly worse function compared to performance-based scores, regardless of sex or obesity status. Among non-obese individuals, greater knee pain intensity was associated with a participant's self-report score indicating increasingly worse function compared to their performance-based score. For obese women, pain catastrophizing, and number of symptomatic joints were also associated with discordance as was reporting fewer comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Physical function may be differentially represented by self-reported and performance-based measures depending on a variety of patient factors. Our findings add to the evidence which suggests both measures should be used when assessing functional status prior to TKA.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".