Functional response to total hip arthroplasty in patients with hip dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While recent studies have shown patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) to achieve comparable post-operative outcomes to patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA), it is unclear whether DDH patients display better or worse preoperative function than the general THA population. We aimed to compare the preoperative function and functional response to THA of DDH patients with OA patients. METHODS: Through a retrospective review of prospectively collected regional joint registry data, we compared the preoperative, 1-year post-operative and post-operative change in disease-specific (Oxford hip score (OHS), Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)) and general health (short form 12 physical health (SF-12 PH), mental health (SF-12 MH) scores) functional scores of 33 DDH patients and 968 OA patients undergoing primary THA. RESULTS: The DDH group displayed substantially worse preoperative function than the OA group (mean OHS 11.2 versus 16.3 (P = 0.001), WOMAC 72.7 versus 60.6 (P < 0.001), SF-12 PH 27.8 versus 28.9 (P = 0.433), SF-12 MH 35.5 versus 44.7 (P < 0.001)). Functional response to THA at 1 year was significantly better in the DDH group than the OA group (mean score improvements: OHS 31.1 versus 24.6 (P < 0.001), WOMAC 61.4 versus 47.2 (P < 0.001), SF-12 PH 22.3 versus 16.5 (P = 0.003), SF-12 MH 18.4 versus 8.4 (P < 0.001)). CONCLUSION: Despite experiencing significantly worse preoperative function, DDH patients undergoing THA demonstrated superior early functional response to OA patients, with substantially greater improvements observed in all disease-specific and general health outcome measures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".