MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390056449 · doi:10.5535/arm.230009

Patient-Reported Outcome Measure of Knee Function: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)

2023· article· en· W4390056449 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gi-Wook Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Rehabilitation Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyWOMACRating scaleActivities of daily livingPsychological interventionKnee painKnee JointOxford knee scorePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRehabilitationPatient-reported outcomeKnee replacementArthroplastyQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryAlternative medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A plethora of instruments have been developed to assess function in patients with knee problems.These measurements have focused on patient-reported measures from the patient's perspective rather than clinician-based measures because of superior validity [1].Grounded in the psychometric properties such as reliability, validity, and responsiveness, recommended patient-reported measures include the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WO-MAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Cincinnati Knee Rating System, Activity Rating Scale, Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale, and Oxford Knee Score [1,2].The IKDC Subjective Knee Form, in particular, was instituted to standardize international documentation of the evaluation after knee surgery or treatment and has strengths in being responsive to change in surgical interventions [2,3].The WOMAC, initially developed in 1982, was designed to evaluate the progression of disease or efficacy of treatments in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).It comprises three domains: pain severity during various positions or movements, severity of joint stiffness, and difficulty performing daily functional activities, with 5, 2, and 17 items, respectively.The Likert version is rated on 5 levels, with scores ranging from 0 ("none") to 4 ("extreme").Cumulative scores for each domain range from 0-20 for pain, 0-8 for stiffness, and 0-68 for physical function, with higher scores indicating a more severe condition.Self-administered or interview-administered questionnaire takes 5-10 minutes [4,5].Its psychometric evidence is sufficiently reliable and valid for use in clinical and research setting [1,2,4].A Korean version of the WOM-AC has been authenticated for reliability, validity, and responsiveness [6].Notably, items from the three WOMAC sub-types are incorporated into the KOOS.The KOOS, developed based on the WOMAC, offers patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate both short and long-term outcomes.Suitable for assessing knee injuries and/or OA across various age groups, it also gauges the course of the disease and the effect of treatments, interventions, and surgeries [7].The self-administered KOOS evaluates 5 domains: Pain (9 items); other Symptoms (7 items); Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (17 items); Sport and Recreation function (5 items); and knee-related Quality of Life (4 items) [8].The KOOS, added to Domains from WOMAC, has been shown in previous studies to be more responsive and sen-

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207