Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index as an Assessment Tool to Indicate Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Primary Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The WOMAC questionnaire is used extensively in the assessment of knee osteoarthritis butnot as an indicator of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to assess if the WOMAC score can be used asan assessment tool to indicate TKA in primary knee osteoarthritis. Materials and Methods: Patients withprimary knee osteoarthritis Kellgren and Lawrence grades 3 or 4 were assessed separately by either one oftwo arthroplasty surgeons for indications to undergo TKA and evaluated using the WOMAC score. Patients whohad received any form of intra-articular knee injection within six months before assessment were excluded.Patients were divided into two groups; indicated for TKA, and for non-surgical treatment. The mean WOMACscore of patients from both groups was compared using Independent t-test. The accuracy at different cut-offpoints in the score indicated for TKA was determined using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curveplotted on sensitivity and 1-specificity graph. Results: The study included 74 patients with a mean age of62.5 years (SD=8.26). There was a significant difference in the total WOMAC score (p<0.001) and itscomponents between patients of the two groups. At the cut-off point of 30, the specificity and sensitivity ofthe score indicated for TKA was 91.18% and 95.00% respectively. The positive predictive value was 93.24%.Conclusion: We recommend all primary knee osteoarthritis Kellgren and Lawrence grades 3 or 4 with ascore of 30 and above should be referred to an arthroplasty surgeon for the possibility of requiring 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".