MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410477288 · doi:10.25259/jmsr_65_2025

Performance of Arabic version short form-12 in the assessment of osteoarthritis patients’ quality of life

2025· article· en· W4410477288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rabab S. Zaghlol, Doaa E. Kamal, Wafaa K. Makram

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArabicQuality of life (healthcare)OsteoarthritisPsychologyQuality (philosophy)MedicinePhysical therapyAlternative medicineLinguisticsPsychotherapistPhilosophyPathologyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease affecting the subchondral bone and the joint cartilage. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Arabic short form-12 (SF-12) questionnaire for OA patients’ quality of life (QoL) and explore its association with self-reported disability and disease characteristics. Methods: This study, conducted at the Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Department, included 95 OA patients. The validity of the SF-12-Arabic scale was evaluated by comparing it to the validated Arabic version of the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Osteoarthritis Quality of Life (OAQoL) questionnaire, and the test-retest reliability was assessed. Results: Cronbach’s alpha for the total SF-12 value was 0.802, representing good internal consistency. The pattern of correlation between the SF-12, WOMAC, OAQoL, and visual analog scale (VAS) supported the construct validity, as there was a significant negative correlation between the SF-12 total score and each of the WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, WOMAC functional, WOMAC total, OAQoL, and VAS score. Conclusion: The Arabic SF-12 questionnaire has good reliability and convergent validity but poor discriminant validity. It is a valid and reliable tool for assessing QoL in Arab patients with OA.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and ResearchSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207