MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200202371 · doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2021.07.019

The American Shoulder and Elbow Score Is Highly Correlated With the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index and Has Less Responder and Administrator Burden

2021· article· en· W3200202371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith M. Baumgarten, Brett J. Barthman, Peter S. Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotator cuffMedicineElbowCuffSurgeryArthroscopyPhysical therapyRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy Sports Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207