Progressing Toward, and Recovering From, Knee Replacement Surgery: A Five‐Year Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the trajectories of preoperative worsening and postoperative recovery for both the index knee and the contralateral knee of patients undergoing knee replacement surgery. METHODS: Of the 4,796 subjects in the Osteoarthritis Initiative cohort study database, we examined 5-year data from 177 patients who underwent isolated unilateral knee replacement surgery and no other joint replacement surgery. Patient-reported outcomes captured domains defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Domains of knee structure and function, activity limitation, and participation restriction were examined using growth-curve modeling over 5-year periods prior to and following surgery. RESULTS: Preoperative worsening of the index knee was substantial in all domains of knee impairment, activity limitation, and societal participation. Pain intensity worsened only slightly from 5 years to 2.5 years prior to surgery, but worsened by ∼2 points (0-10-point scale) during the 2.5 years prior to surgery. Trajectories of improvement following surgery varied depending on the outcome measure. The contralateral knee also changed over time, such that by ∼2 years following surgery, pain was worse and by 3 years, activity limitation was worse in the contralateral knee as compared to the index knee. CONCLUSION: Patients who elect to undergo knee replacement surgery demonstrate perioperative trajectories of change that influence most health domains for both the index knee and the contralateral knee. After a period of no change, escalation of pain and worsening functioning in the index knee begins ∼2.5 years prior to surgery, which may be a key trigger for surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".