MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988601399 · doi:10.1080/000164700317393376

Past incidence and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden: A report from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register regarding the effect of past and future population changes on the number of arthroplasties performed

2000· article· en· W1988601399 on OpenAlexaff
Otto Robertsson, Michael Dunbar, Kaj Knutson, Lars Lidgren

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica Scandinavica · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)ArthroplastyTotal knee arthroplastyPopulationRheumatoid arthritisSurgeryDemographyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By combining data from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register and Swedish census registers we have calculated the past age-specific incidence of primary knee arthroplasties and predicted the demand. During the last 20 years, osteoarthrosis has accounted for the largest increase in number of knee arthroplasties while operations for rheumatoid arthritis remained constant. The mean yearly number of operations between the periods 1976-1980 and 1996-1997 increased more than five-fold, while only 6% of that increase could be explained by changes in the age-profile of the population. Most operations were performed on persons of 65 years and older who also had the largest increase in incidence. By using the incidences for 1996 and 1997 and taking into account the expected future changes in the age profile of the Swedish population, we estimate that, in the absence of an effective preventive treatment, the number of knee arthroplasties will increase by at least one third until 2030.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations91
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Orthopaedica ScandinavicaSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207