MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019885652 · doi:10.1519/r-19465.1

Prehabilitation Before Knee Arthroplasty Increases Postsurgical Function: A Case Study

2007· article· en· W2019885652 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason R. Jaggers, Crystal Simpson, Karen L. Frost, Peter M. Quesada, Robert Topp, Ann M. Swank, John Nyland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing Research
KeywordsPrehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyOsteoarthritisArthroplastyRange of motionProprioceptionPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conditioning the body to undergo physical stress such as joint arthroplasty has been termed prehabilitation. This case study examined the effect of a 4-week prehabilitation intervention on functional outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Two female subjects completed baseline strength and functional assessments before TKA. Subjects were randomized to either a 4-week prehabilitation intervention (ES) aimed at increasing strength and range of motion or a usual care condition (CS). After 4 weeks of training, subjects were reassessed and underwent TKA. Subjects completed a final assessment 12 weeks after TKA. Functional outcomes included 6-minute walk, number of times up from a chair in 30 seconds, proprioception, and self-reported function and pain using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The data suggest that 4 weeks of prehabilitation had a positive effect on functional task performance and knee proprioception before surgery. After surgery, the ES continued to exhibit higher levels of functioning and less pain compared with the CS. Prehabilitation before TKA may contribute to improved recovery after surgery.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations50
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207