Modification and validity of WOMAC scale in Cuba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: degenerative joint diseases of the lower limb have a high prevalence especially those that affect the knee joint. To evaluate the treatment modalities used, scales are used that are originated in other countries. Objective: to validate an evaluation instrument with modifications adapted to the national context. Methods: a development investigation was carried out to address the modification and validation of the The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scale in the evaluation of patients with primary gonarthrosis; at the Manuel Ascunce Domenech University Hospital in the city of Camagüey in the period from September 2018 to January 2019. Results: the validation was carried out through an initial process that included the translation into Spanish language and cultural translation, experts consultation, techniques and procedures broken down into five steps such as: definition and characterization of the object of study, selection of indicators, definition of the scale, construction of items and evaluative form of the instrument. To explore the validity the following components were defined: appearance, content based on Moriyama criteria, construct and criterion validity. For the modification and validation of the scale, the data was obtained from primary sources, which produced a database; in statistical processing, summary measures (average and standard deviation), Pearson's linear correlation, Cronbach's alpha coefficient and factor analysis were used with the help of the SPSS 25.0 statistical package for Windows. Conclusions: the reliability and validity of the demonstrated modified scale makes it very useful for the evaluation of patients with primary gonarthrosis. DeCS: OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE/classification; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE/epidemiology; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE/therapy; Knee Joint; Validation 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 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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".