The American Shoulder and Elbow Score Is Highly Correlated With the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index and Has Less Responder and Administrator Burden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare the correlation, responsiveness, and responder and administrator burdens of the American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES) with the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) for patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair to determine whether one score is superior to the other to limit the use of multiple scoring measures when tracking patient outcomes. Methods A retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was reviewed where the ASES was simultaneously recorded with the WORC. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine if correlations differed in (1) preoperative outcome and (2) postoperative outcome determinations. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean and the effect size of both scores. Responder and administrator burden was examined using 50 consecutively scored WORC and ASES scores by determining the number of questions accurately answered and the length of time taken to score each questionnaire. Results Correlation was excellent for the ASES and WORC (r = 0.90). The correlation of preoperative scores was strong‐moderate (r = 0.69), and the correlation of postoperative scores was excellent (r = 0.86). The standardized response mean WORC = 2.3; ASES = 2.2) and the effect size (WORC = 2.9; ASES = 2.8) demonstrated comparable responsiveness. In total, 71.5% of the WORC questions were able to be scored compared with 93.3% for the ASES ( P < .0001). The mean time to score the WORC was significantly greater than the ASES (154 vs 23 seconds; P < .0001). Conclusions There is excellent correlation and comparable responsiveness between the ASES and WORC. Since there is greater responder and administrative burden for the WORC score, the authors recommend using the ASES over the WORC in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Level of Evidence Level IV, diagnostic series.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".