MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379197164 · doi:10.1186/s12891-023-06578-5

Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) - a validation for use in proximal humerus fractures treated with arthroplasty

2023· article· en· W4379197164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yilmaz Demir, Hanna Sjöberg, André Stark, Björn Salomonsson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsMedicineArthroplastyPhysical therapyPromCronbach's alphaSports medicineOrthopedic surgeryConstruct validityPhysical examinationHumerusReliability (semiconductor)RheumatologyCohen's kappaElbowOsteoarthritisPatient satisfactionSurgeryPsychometricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Swedish shoulder and Arthroplasty Registry (SSAR) use the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) as their shoulder-specific score in the follow-up. WOOS is not yet validated for use as the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement (PROM) for proximal humerus fractures (PHF) treated with shoulder hemiarthroplasty (SHA) in the Swedish registry. The aim of this study was to examine the validity, the reliability and the responsiveness of WOOS as a PROM for proximal humerus fractures treated with shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: of June 2011. A total of 72 subjects were identified with at least 1 year of follow-up. Of these 43 completed all the shoulder-specific PROM together with a clinical examination, including a WOOS retest and general health scores. A group of 29 did not undergo any clinical examination, but they completed all the questionnaires not requiring a clinical examination. The validity was assessed with WOOS compared to satisfaction level, and the Spearman rank coefficient was used for the correlation between WOOS and the shoulder-specific scores (Constant-Murley Score, Oxford Shoulder Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form and EQ-5D. For reliability, Intra Class Correlation (ICC) was used for the test-retest assessment and Cronbach´s alpha for the construct reliability. RESULTS: The validity for WOOS had an excellent correlation (> 0.75) with all the shoulder-specific scores and a good correlation (> 0.6) with EQ-5D. The reliability with the test-retest of the total WOOS score and the subgroups had an excellent correlation. Cronbach´s alpha also supports the construct of WOOS. There were no floor or ceiling effects. CONCLUSIONS: We found that WOOS is a reliable tool for evaluating patients with SHA after PHF. Based on our study, we recommend the continued use of WOOS in shoulder arthroplasty registries and observational studies.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Musculoskeletal DisordersSame topicShoulder Injury and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207