Defining the Relationship between Obesity and Total Joint Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between obesity and patient-administered outcome measures after total joint arthroplasty. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A voluntary questionnaire-based registry contained 592 primary total hip arthroplasty patients and 1011 primary total knee arthroplasty patients with preoperative and 1-year data. Using logistic regression, the relationships between body mass index and the several outcome measures, including Short Form-36 and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, were examined. RESULTS: There was no difference between obese and non-obese patients regarding satisfaction, decision to repeat surgery, and Delta physical component summary, Delta mental component summary, and Delta Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (p > 0.05 for all). Body mass index was associated with an increased risk of having difficulty descending or ascending stairs at 1 year (odds ratio, 1.2 to 1.3). DISCUSSION: Obese patients enjoy as much improvement and satisfaction as other patients from total joint arthroplasty.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".