The Knee Society Index of Severity for Failed Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with primary knee replacement, total knee arthroplasty revision surgery is a more complex procedure and accounts for greater expenditures of healthcare resources at each clinical stage. Overall, patients having revision procedures have poorer functional outcomes and higher complication rates than patients having primary arthroplasty. Despite the expanded scope of revision problems and the rapidly emerging technology in revision surgery, the long-term success of any method remains in question. Because there is little consensus on the timing of revision surgery, optimal surgical reconstruction, and the type of prosthesis to be implanted, the Knee Society began development of an Index of Severity for Failed Total Knee Arthroplasty. Fifty-four percent of Knee Society members completed an 82-item questionnaire that determined their clinical impression about potential risk factors for the outcomes of revision surgery for failed total knee replacements. Using these results, a consensus group developed the final version of the index. The result of the nominal group process was the Knee Society Index of Severity, which was based on eight distinct domains. Each domain was divided into attributes and weights based on the questionnaire responses and consensus meeting. Actual case scenarios from five institutions were used to test interrater reliability and validity. The interrater reliability of the average score of all ratings was 0.95; the correlation of the criterion rating with the mean rating was 0.77. When three outliers were not included, the Pearson product correlation increased to 0.92. These data support the application of the Knee Society Index of Severity as a critical component of risk factor studies, effectiveness research, and cost-effectiveness analysis involving revisions of total knee replacements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".