Late Isometric Assessment of Hip Abductor Muscle and Its Relationship with Functional Tests in Elderly Women Undergoing Replacement of Unilateral Hip Joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the recovery of muscle strength and measure autonomy 3 yrs after hip replacement surgery in a sample of patients. DESIGN: Seventy-eight female patients (70.7 ± 6.3 yrs old) operated on for hip replacement were evaluated. They underwent evaluation tests for hip abductor muscle strength on the healthy and operated limb using strength curves obtained with isometric assessments. Autonomy was evaluated with a rating scale Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris and MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and functional assessment (Timed 'Up and Go' test). RESULTS: Three years after surgery, a muscle strength deficit was still noticeable on the operated limb compared with the healthy limb ranging from 9% at 5 degrees of adduction to 12% at 0 degree of abduction. The strength curves obtained on the operated side maintained the same descending trend as the healthy side. The authors found no significant correlations between the patient-reported functional measures and the hip abductor strength deficit. The Timed Up and Go test was moderately correlated with the muscle strength deficit. The association between the deficit and the Timed Up and Go test was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of muscle strength and functional tests are more useful than the rating scales in patients 3 yrs after surgery. The strength curves are useful to have different levels of information and describe joint function.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".