MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041784738 · doi:10.5792/ksrr.2013.25.1.7

Management of Tibial Bony Defect with Metal Block in Primary Total Knee Replacement Arthroplasty

2013· article· en· W2041784738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seung‐Wook Baek, Chul-Woong Kim, Choong Hyeok Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery and Related Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastyBlock (permutation group theory)Total knee replacementMedicineOrthodonticsSurgeryKnee replacementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To analyze minimum 2-year clinical and radiological follow-up results of primary total knee replacement arthroplasty (TKRA) with metal block augmentation for tibial bony defect. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 67 cases (52 patients) of primary TKRA with metal block augmentation for tibial bony defects from March 1999 and March 2008. Clinical results were evaluated using the Knee Society clinical rating system and the Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) score. Radiologic results were evaluated using the Knee Society roentgenographic evaluation system. RESULTS: The mean knee score and function score improved from 42.0 and 45.6 preoperatively to 94.5 and 85.4 postoperatively. At last follow-up, the mean WOMAC score was 16.8. The incidence of radiolucent lines was 10% (7 cases) during the follow-up period, but there was no case of progression. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups divided according to the block size (below 5 mm and over 8 mm) and between the stem and no-stem groups for all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Primary TKRA with a metal block produced satisfactory results for the minimum 2-year follow-up and can be considered as a simple and effective method for the treatment of tibial bony defect in primary TKRA.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations13
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery and Related ResearchSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207