MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082216887 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.00769

Range of Motion of Standard and High-Flexion Posterior Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Prostheses*

2009· article· en· W2082216887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Young‐Hoo Kim, Yoowang Choi, Jun-Shik Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange of motionRange (aeronautics)OrthodonticsTotal knee replacementMotion captureMedicineMotion (physics)Computer scienceSurgeryEngineeringAerospace engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The main goals of total knee arthroplasty are pain relief and improvement in function and the range of motion. The purpose of this study was to compare the ranges of motion of the knees of patients treated with a standard posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in the other. METHODS: Fifty-four patients (mean age, 69.7 years) received a standard posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in one knee and a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prosthesis in the contralateral knee. Five patients were men, and forty-nine were women. At a mean of three years postoperatively, the patients were assessed clinically and radiographically with the knee-rating systems of the Knee Society and the Hospital for Special Surgery and with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. RESULTS: The mean postoperative Knee Society and Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores were 93.7 and 89 points, respectively, for the knees with a standard posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis, and they were 93.9 and 90 points, respectively, for the knees with a high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining prosthesis. The mean postoperative WOMAC score was 22 points. Postoperatively, the mean ranges of motion without and with weight-bearing were 131 degrees (range, 90 degrees to 150 degrees) and 115 degrees (range, 75 degrees to 145 degrees), respectively, in the knees with a standard prosthesis and 133 degrees (range, 90 degrees to 150 degrees) and 118 degrees (range, 75 degrees to 145 degrees), respectively, in those with a high-flexion prosthesis. Patient satisfaction and radiographic results were similar in the two groups. No knee had aseptic loosening, revision, or osteolysis. CONCLUSIONS: After a minimum duration of follow-up of three years, we found no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the range of knee motion or the clinical or radiographic parameters.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207