Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Hip Preservation Surgery: Are They All the Same?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Historically, for hip procedures, the Hip Outcome Score (HOS) and the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) have been commonly usedas instruments for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, these tools are often influenced by other factors, such as concurrent illnesses, making more standardized tools a preferable choice. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-25 (PROMIS-25) is a standardized, validated PROMs metric that has correlated well with several other anatomy-specific PROMs tools. In this study, we aim to assess and compare the correlations between iHOT-12 and HOS with PROMIS-25 in adult and pediatric hip preservation patients. METHODS: This study included patients indicated for a hip preservation procedure at our institution. All patients completed the iHOT-12, HOS, and PROMIS instruments through an electronic PRO platform before surgery. Spearman correlations were calculated separately for adult and pediatric patients between the various domains in each tool. A rho-to-z transformation analysis was conducted to assess whether there are differences in PROMs correlations between demographic factors. RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were enrolled in this study from July 2020 to July 2023. The average age was 20.1 years (SD: 6.7 years), and more pediatric patients (64.5%) were enrolled than adult patients (35.4%). Multiple PROMIS domains, such as functional mobility, had strong or strong-moderate correlations with other hip PROMs in both adult (HOS activities of daily living: ρ = 0.76, P < 0.01; HOS Sports: ρ = 0.84, P < 0.01; iHOT-12: ρ = 0.85, P < 0.01) and pediatric (HOS activities of daily living: ρ = 0.79, P < 0.01; HOS Sports: ρ = 0.88, P < 0.01; iHOT-12: ρ = 0.66, P < 0.01) patients. Notable effects of age and sex were observed on correlations between PROMs ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: There are strong correlations between iHOT-12, HOS, and PROMIS domains designed to measure similar constructs in both age groups. However, certain demographic differences may markedly influence the correlation between iHOT-12/HOS and PROMIS. PROMIS-25 can accurately capture outcomes for both adult and pediatric patients undergoing hip preservation surgery.
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 | 0.027 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".