MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Instrumentos de avaliação da qualidade de vida referente ao quadril

2022· article· pt· W4280576397 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Letícia Nunes Carreras Del Castillo Mathias, Themis Moura Cardinot, Nathalia Sundin Palmeira de Oliveira, Liszt Palmeira de Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do Conhecimento · 2022
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsWOMACMedicinePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Hip arthroplastyOsteoarthritisGynecologyArthroplastySurgeryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Durante as últimas décadas vários instrumentos, questionários e escalas, foram desenvolvidos para avaliar a função do paciente com dor no quadril. Esses instrumentos representam um método objetivo de medida da qualidade do tratamento recebido pelo paciente. Neste contexto, o presente artigo, tem como questão norteadora: Quais instrumentos de avaliação da qualidade de vida referente ao quadril estão disponíveis atualmente na literatura? O objetivo deste artigo foi realizar uma revisão bibliométrica dos instrumentos de avaliação da qualidade de vida utilizados mundialmente na ortopedia referente ao quadril. Existem instrumentos de avaliação da qualidade de vida genéricos e específicos. Os instrumentos específicos para quadril dividem-se em dois grupos: instrumentos específicos para paciente com e sem doença articular degenerativa. Os principais instrumentos genéricos utilizados são o 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) e o 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). Para avaliação de pacientes com doença articular degenerativa estão disponíveis os seguintes questionários: (i) Merle D’Aubigné e Postel; (ii) Charnley-Merle D’Aubigne; (iii) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC); (iv) WOMAC reduzido; (v) Mayo Hip Score; (vi) Oxford Hip Score (OHS); (vii) Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS); (viii) Hip Rating Questionnaire (HRQ); (ix) Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH); (x) Harris Hip Score (HHS); (xi) Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). Para avaliação de pacientes sem doença articular degenerativa pode-se utilizar os seguintes questionários: (i) Harris Hip Score Modificado (HHSM); (ii) Hip Outcome Score (HOS); (iii) Nonarthritic Score Hip (NAHS); (iv) Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS). A associação de um instrumento de qualidade de vida genérico a um instrumento específico para quadril é fundamental para a correta avaliação e tomada de decisão referente ao cuidado clínico do paciente, além de favorecer o intercâmbio de informações no meio assistencial e acadêmico.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.101
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.101
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Científica Multidisciplinar Núcleo do ConhecimentoSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207