Radiographic Assessment in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sixty-five total knee arthroplasties were evaluated by the Knee Society Radiological Evaluation System which was developed to encourage uniform reporting of the results of total knee arthroplasty. All patients were examined by three independent experienced radiologists 8.9 years after surgery (range, 3-16 years) to analyze the interobserver variability. For measurement of angles, high interobserver correlation was calculated for the prosthetic component angles and the femorotibial shaft angle. The comparison of the means indicated no significant differences except for the femorotibial shaft angle. For measurement of radiolucent lines, interobserver correlation was low for all components. The differences of the means were significantly different for all components. The results of interobserver variability of the patellar evaluation revealed high interobserver correlation for the patellar angle and for patellar subluxation and dislocation evaluation. For assessment of patellar mediolateral and superoinferior displacement, a low interobserver correlation was found. For radiographic assessment of total knee arthroplasty, the measurement of angles, including alpha, beta, femorotibial shaft angle, sagittal femoral and tibial component angle, patellar angle, and patellar subluxation and dislocation evaluation are recommended. The method of assessing radiolucent lines should be reconsidered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".