MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116655915 · doi:10.1155/2020/6673175

Swiss Orthopaedics Minimal Dataset: First Pilot Report of Reliability and Validity

2020· article· en· W3116655915 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thorsten Jentzsch, Claudio Dora, Urs Müller, Mazda Farshad

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Orthopedics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationPopulationPhysical therapyTest (biology)Confidence intervalReliability (semiconductor)Observational studyFamily medicinePsychometricsClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. The Swiss Orthopaedics Minimal Dataset (SOMD) was launched seven years ago. It is a standardized, generic, and patient-reported outcome questionnaire, comprising ten items (location of disease, pain within the past four weeks, limitations at work/leisure/sleep/autonomy, subjective value of a body part, employment status, work disability (sick leave/pension), and household support). We conducted this study about the SOMD to report its reliability, validity, and clinical applicability. Methods. A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted. The test-retest study population (n = 60; lost to follow-up: n = 7 (12%)) was drawn from three retirement homes (in 2013), while the test study population (n = 14,180; excluded (e.g., duplicates): n = 1,990 (14%)) consisted of patients from a university hospital (in 2014–2017). In the test-retest study population, the same questionnaire was completed twice (at days 0 and 7). In the test study population, only the first questionnaire was included (to avoid duplicates). In a subgroup of the test study population (n = 302), only those patients who completed the SOMD and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) of the hip within 14 days were considered (to minimize recall bias). Reliability (test-retest and internal consistency), criterion validity for the item of pain, and return rates were analyzed. Results. The test-retest study population (n = 53) showed very high test-retest reliability for all tested items of the SOMD (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.96–1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.93–1.00), p < 0.001 ). The test study population (n = 12,190) revealed good internal consistency reliability for all ten items (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80). The return rates of the SOMD were improvable (43% in 2016 and 31% in 2017). The subgroup of the test study population (n = 302) displayed a borderline acceptable criterion validity (correlation of the item of pain between SOMD and WOMAC hip: rho = 0.62, p < 0.001 ). Conclusion. This is the first report about the validation of the SOMD. A relatively high reliability (test-retest and internal consistency), borderline acceptable (criterion) validity for the item of pain, and improvable clinical implementation were observed. This analysis serves as the basis for a structured modification of the SOMD to improve its value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.308
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.118 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in OrthopedicsSame topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207