A Comparison of Two Rehabilitation Protocols after Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Controlled, Randomized Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-operative outcomes after simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty in 115 patients randomly assigned to two rehabilitation protocols were compared. The traditional-protocol group performed a series of exercises on one leg and then repeated the same sequence on the other leg. The alternate-protocol group performed the same exercises, but alternated between legs with each individual repetition. Symptoms and function were assessed pre-operatively and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months post-operatively. The alternate-protocol group had lower visual analogue pain scale scores in the early post-operative period, as well as higher Knee Society Scores and SF-12 physical and mental health summary scores after 1 and 3 months compared with the traditional-protocol group, but there were no differences between the two groups from 6 months post-operatively. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of range of knee motion or incidence of deep vein thrombosis. The alternate-protocol for rehabilitation resulted in an early return to function and decreased pain levels following simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty and was associated with the potential to produce more positive emotional states and earlier functional independence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it