Comparison of Clinic- and Home-Based Rehabilitation Programs After Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred sixty patients (mean age, 68 +/- 8 years) having primary total knee arthroplasty were assigned randomly to two rehabilitation programs: (1) clinic-based rehabilitation provided by outpatient physical therapists; or (2) home-based rehabilitation monitored by periodic telephone calls from a physical therapist. Both rehabilitation programs emphasized a common home exercise program. Before surgery, and at 12 and 52 weeks after surgery, no statistically significant differences were observed between the clinic- and the home-based groups on any of the following measures: (1) total score on the Knee Society clinical rating scale; (2) total score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; (3) total score on the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form; (4) pain scale of the Knee Society clinical rating scale; (5) pain scale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; (6) functional scale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; (7) distance walked in 6 minutes; (8) number of stairs ascended and descended in 30 seconds; and (9) knee flexion range of motion, on either the per protocol or the intent-to-treat or the analyses. After primary total knee arthroplasty, patients who completed a home exercise program (home-based rehabilitation) performed similarly to patients who completed regular outpatient clinic sessions in addition to the home exercises (clinic-based rehabilitation). Additional studies need to determine which patients are likely to benefit most from clinic-based rehabilitation programs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".