Types of Knee Function Estimating Patient Reported Outcome Measures: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contribution of a patient’s insight about their health situation aids in revamping the treatments. Patient-reported outcome measures or PROMs gauge a patient’s point of view through questionnaires. The knee joint, being a more liable human part to suffer an injury, had been considered well by clinicians all around. There had been the introduction of numerous knee function measuring tools that could be either patient or clinician-administered. This article focuses on six patient-relevant outcome measures that are being used in various clinical as well as research contexts. This includes the IKDC Rating Scale, Oxford Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Outcome Survey- Activities of Daily Living (KOS-ADL) Scale and MARX Activity Rating Scale (MARS). Keywords: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), knee injury, IKDC, WOMAC, KOOS, questionnaires, KOOS-ADL, MARS
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 | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".