MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043722917 · doi:10.1002/art.10652

Locomotor deficits before and two months after knee arthroplasty

2002· article· en· W2043722917 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Ouellet, Hélène Moffet

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Care & Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationGaitOsteoarthritisAnkleBalance (ability)Knee flexionRehabilitationKinematicsPhysical therapyTotal knee arthroplastyArthroplastyTimed Up and Go testSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the locomotor deficits before and 2 months after a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, and to compare pre- and postoperative performance. METHODS: Locomotor capacity of patients was evaluated using laboratory gait and stair-ascent evaluations (kinematic and kinetic variables, electromyographic activity of 4 muscles of both lower limbs, and spatiotemporal parameters), the timed Up & Go (TUG), and the 6-minute walk (6MW) test. RESULTS: Large locomotor deficits (increased hip flexion, decreased excursions of the knee and ankle, smaller extensor and flexor moments of force at the 3 joints, and muscle activation levels lower in all muscles tested) are still present in patients, particularly in the single-limb support subphase before and 2 months after TKA. These deficits explain the slower walk and stair-ascent speeds and a reduced performance at the TUG and 6MW tests. CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the need for more careful followup and intensive rehabilitation programs in the first months following TKA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations166
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Care & ResearchSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207