MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4308658842 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063576

Test reliability and comparability of paper and Chinese electronic version of the western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index: protocol for a randomised controlled clinical trial

2022· article· en· W4308658842 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yujie Zhang, Zhao Ye, Kaoqiang Liu, Yongli Chai, Lin Fen, Hongsheng Zhan, Yuxin Zheng, Wei-An Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShanghai University of Traditional Chinese MedicineNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaShanghai Municipal Health Commission
KeywordsMedicineComparabilityProtocol (science)Reliability (semiconductor)Test (biology)Index (typography)Physical therapyClinical trialRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) is the most commonly used indicator of disease-specific outcome in knee osteoarthritis for its convenience and reliability. It has two formats the paper-based WOMAC (p-WOMAC) and the electronic WOMAC (e-WOMAC). In China, the p-WOMAC has been widely used though e-WOMAC is yet untested. This study aims to test whether e-WOMAC is consistent with the p-WOMAC before and after the intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 70 patients from Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine will be randomly assigned in two groups, named, group A and group B. This study is divided into three stages. In the first stage, patients in group A will be evaluated first by p-WOMAC and then by e-WOMAC. Patients in group B will be evaluated by e-WOMAC and then by p-WOMAC. In the second stage of the study, drug interventions will be implemented. 200 mg celecoxib will be administered orally once a day starting from the second day of enrolment for a period of 21 days. In the third stage, postintervention evaluation will be conducted after administration. Patients in group A will be evaluated first by e-WOMAC and then by p-WOMAC. Patients in group B will be evaluated first by p-WOMAC and then by e-WOMAC. In order to avoid the possible bias because of patients' potential memory, e-WOMAC and p-WOMAC will be taken for each patient at 15 min apart. The primary outcome of the study is the mean score difference in WOMAC, and the secondary outcomes are the score differences in WOMAC subscales: pain, stiffness and physical function. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the Independent Review Board of SGH (approval number: 2020-814-21-01). The results of the trial will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2100050914.

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)0.061
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0610.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.007
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.009

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→