Gait, Balance Recovery and Balance Confidence after Total Knee Replacement: Differences between Younger and Older Patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total knee replacement (TKR) is the gold standard treatment for improving mobility and relieving pain associated with end-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA) when other modalities have failed. Patients demonstrate significant improvements compared to pre-TKR levels, however deficiencies in function and mobility remain when compared to healthy controls. Recent national joint replacement registries have reported a substantial increase in the number of TKR procedures performed on younger patients. Over the last decade in Canada, the largest relative percent increase (≈300%) in TKRs has occurred to patients who were between 45-54 years of age. Although this younger patient group (<55 years old) is rapidly growing, the vast majority of the literature investigating TKR outcomes has been based upon the ‘typical’, older TKR patient (≥ 65 years old). This has created a therapeutic dilemma for clinicians, having little empirical data to formulate explicit statements or recommendations regarding how TKR will affect this younger population, and a concern with prosthesis failure and revision surgery, there is a hesitation to perform TKR on the younger knee OA patient. \nAge-related deterioration in sensory information acquisition and musculoskeletal function has been observed between younger and older adults in the absence of knee OA and TKR, and has been linked to an increase in fall risk and falls. These age-related deficits observed in healthy adults may also distinguish younger and older TKR patients, which would have important implications to the surgical and rehabilitation practice. Currently, there are a limited number of published reports examining age-related differences in TKR patients and this gap in the literature warrants investigation. Therefore, the goal of this thesis is primarily to investigate the younger TKR patient and to compare their observations to that of the older, ‘typical’ patient and to their healthy age-matched controls.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it