Gender Does Not Influence the Relationship Between Posterior Cruciate Ligament Design and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Receiving Primary Unilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of the interaction between gender and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) prosthesis design on patient-reported outcomes is an understudied area of research. We evaluated 1613 patients, from the Ontario Joint Replacement Registry (2001-2006), who underwent primary total knee replacement. This study investigated the impact of the gender-PCL design interaction on Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) change scores and patient satisfaction, by performing linear regression analysis, using full-adjusted models that also included the gender-PCL prosthesis design interaction variable. PCL prosthesis design did not affect WOMAC change scores or satisfaction (p>0.05). Moreover, Gender did not influence either of the patient-reported outcomes (p>0.05). In addition, the interaction between gender and PCL design did not impact patient-reported outcomes (p>0.05). In conclusion, the surgical preference to retain or sacrifice the PCL should not be influenced by the gender of the patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".