Health-related and overall quality of life of patients with chronic hip and knee complaints in general practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information about quality of life of patients with chronic hip or knee complaints in general practice is scarce. This study describes the health-related and overall quality of life (HRQL) of these complaints. METHODS: Data were obtained from a cohort study in general practice. HRQL at three months follow-up was analysed. HRQL was measured as: symptoms, physical, psychological and social functioning, and general health perceptions, using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the MOS 36-item short-form-health survey (SF-36). Overall quality of life was measured using a 5-point rating scale. RESULTS: The results show that patients with chronic hip or knee complaints have a substantial lower HRQL compared to patients who had recovered from baseline hip or knee complaints. The largest effect was found on symptoms and physical functioning: up to 2.9 standard deviations below patients who had recovered from baseline hip or knee complaints. Scores of patients with both chronic hip and knee complaints were significantly worse than scores of patients with only knee complaints on most subscales. CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic hip or knee complaints the worst scores were seen on scales that measure symptoms and physical functioning, but still a substantially lower score was obtained for overall quality of life. Quality of life was poorer for patients with both chronic hip and knee complaints compared to those with chronic hip or knee complaints only
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".