Midterm results using a medial pivot total knee replacement compared with the <scp>A</scp>ustralian <scp>N</scp>ational <scp>J</scp>oint Replacement <scp>R</scp>egistry data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order to emulate normal knee kinematics more closely, and thereby potentially improve wear characteristics and implant longevity, the medial pivot-type knee replacement geometry was designed. In the current study the outcome of 50 consecutive knee replacements using a medial pivot-type knee replacement was compared with the results in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. METHODS: Pre- and post-operatively at follow-up evaluation consisted of the Knee Society score system and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Score. Patient satisfaction was documented using 5-point Likert-type scales. Standard radiographs were used to assess signs of radiographic failure. Revisions were subcategorized into major total, major partial and minor. Patient records were cross-referenced against the Australian Orthopaedic Associations National Joint Replacement Registry's and the outcome compared with the registry's subset of data on the medial pivot knee used. RESULTS: According to the patients' Knee Society score system and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores, there was good pain relief and functional improvement; none of the implants showed radiographic signs of failure. There was one minor revision. There was no statistically significant difference in revision rate compared with the registry results. DISCUSSION: The medial pivot knee-type implant in this series provided pain relief, functional improvement and a revision rate, similar to what is reported in the literature after a longer follow-up period, which is reassuring for those who use this type of implant 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".