Assessing Responsiveness of the Trapeziometacarpal Arthrosis Symptoms and Disability Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the responsiveness of the Trapeziometacarpal Arthrosis Symptoms and Disability (TASD) questionnaire after corticosteroid injections and operative management for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis (TMC-OA). Methods: This longitudinal cohort study included patients with TMC-OA who underwent treatment (corticosteroid injection or surgery). Measurements occurred at baseline and follow-up time points: 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Patient measures were collected electronically using a data repository platform. The TASD is a validated psychometric patient-administered scale. We examined responsiveness by correlating the TASD scores with another known effective indicator of change (shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [QuickDASH]). Repeated score measurements over time were analyzed using analysis of variance, and correlations between questionnaires were reported with repeated measures correlation and Pearson correlation coefficients. Results: The nonsurgical cohort undergoing corticosteroid injections included 31 (66%) women and 16 (34%) men, and the surgical cohort included 29 (71%) women and 12 (29%) men. Both the QuickDASH and the TASD captured a statistically significant improvement in symptom burden postoperatively ( P < .0001 for both questionnaires), whereas no statistical significance was noted after corticosteroid injections ( P = .45 and P = .34, respectively). There was a strong correlation between QuickDASH and TASD questionnaires ( r = 0.87, P < .0001). Conclusions: The TASD is a promising TMC-OA–specific questionnaire to capture responsiveness following treatment, particularly following surgery. The responsiveness of TASD was demonstrated in the TMC-OA cohort. Further research is needed to define a minimal clinically important difference.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".