Reliability and validity of Vancouver Scar Scale and Withey score after syndactyly release
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the reliability and validity of the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and the Withey score after syndactyly release. Over a 3-year period, 13 patients who underwent syndactyly release were evaluated. The mean age at the time of syndactyly release was 12 months (range, 8-18 months), and the mean follow-up period was 29 months (range, 17-52 months). We obtained hand photographs and finger motion videos and collected the satisfaction scores for hand function and cosmesis. Three clinicians evaluated the hand photographs and finger motion video of each patient twice using the VSS and the Withey score. The interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities of the VSS and Withey score were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The validity of the VSS and Withey score was determined using Spearman's correlation test with the functional and cosmetic satisfaction score. The ICCs for the interobserver reliability of VSS were 0.31 and 0.39 for each measurement, and ICCs for the intraobserver reliability of VSS were 0.46, 0.51, and 0.54 for each observer. The ICCs for the interobserver reliability of the Withey score were 0.74 and 0.70, and the ICCs for the intraobserver reliability of the Withey score were 0.91, 0.74, and 0.96. The Withey score was significantly correlated with the satisfaction score for hand function and hand cosmesis, but the VSS was not. The VSS had poor interobserver reliability and fair intraobserver reliability, whereas the Withey score had good interobserver reliability and excellent intraobserver reliability based on photographic evaluation after syndactyly release.
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 | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".