Outcomes of total joint arthroplasty in academic versus community hospitals.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most joint-replacement surgeries are currently performed in community hospitals. We sought to determine whether the functional outcomes of joint-replacement surgery differ between academic and community hospitals. METHODS: We surveyed 471 patients for demographic data, Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores at baseline and at 3-month and 1-year follow-up. We assessed patient satisfaction at 1 year with a single survey question. RESULTS: Community hospital patients (n = 269) were significantly older and had greater comorbidity than academic hospital patients (n = 202; p < 0.05). We found no difference in WOMAC scores, SF-36 scores or in patient satisfaction between hospitals at 1-year follow-up (p > 0.05). Adjusted analysis showed that patients undergoing surgery in an academic or community hospitals have the same functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference in the functional outcomes of joint-replacement surgery between academic and community hospitals. Further work will involve evaluating cost of care differences between these types of hospitals.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".