Profile of long term degenerative hip disease patients / by Shannon Andersen. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose ofthis study was to profile and determine the relationships among activity level, age, health status, quality of life, walking capacity and severity of degeneration in 54 (mean age 54.91 ? 16.97, range 26 to 86) long term degenerative hip disease (DHD) patients. \nThe relationships of these variables with respect to five classifications of DHD (derived from a medical assessment as to the origin of the disease) were also examined, and various coping strategies utilized to manage the disease were documented. Radiological and historical data, the \nShort Form 36 (SF-36) Health Status Questionnaire, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), a set of interview questions, a six-minute walk test, and a seven day diary were used to obtain the data on each variable. Six correlations (p < 0.05; r > ? 0.50) were produced, the strongest of which (r = -0.73) was between health status (SF-36) and physical functioning (SF-36). Physical functioning also best predicted walking capacity. \nThree of the seven variables (age, general health (SF-36), and severity of degeneration) were significantly different among the groups. Analgesics were the coping strategy most recorded for both one-time usage and over a seven day period. Long-term DHD sufferers must survive with the daily limitations of their disease until surgery is warranted. Pain, stiffness and physical dysfunction associated with DHD, which are intermittent by nature, require the use of coping strategies to manage the symptoms, and help patients survive on a day to day basis. It would appear that, in this preliminary study, the DHD patients are surviving with this disease on a long \nterm basis. Further longitudinal research is required to examine how these patients function over time. The results from this study give concrete evidence to physicians and DHD sufferers themselves on how other, similar long term patients have managed on a day to day basis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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 teacher head, 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".