The wait for total hip replacement by patients with osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We documented the following components of waiting time for total hip replacement (THR): first surgical consultation, date of decision to operate and date of surgery. We then explored whether these intervals differed by age, sex, occupation or quality-of-life score. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design and collected the primary data from patients 2 to 4 weeks before they underwent THR. Trained interviewers administered the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), which included data on event dates, conservative treatment, demographic information and quality of life. We illustrated waiting times, quality of life and past use of conservative treatment (i.e., cane, exercise, physiotherapy) with descriptive statistics (mean [standard deviation] or median [intraquartile range]) for continuous variables and with percentages for categorical variables. We plotted KaplanMeier graphs for each waiting time component and employed log-rank analysis to determine whether any of these delays differed by age, sex, occupation or disability. We also performed a Cox regression to adjust for all covariates simultaneously. RESULTS: The median wait from surgical consultation to decision to operate was 0 months. There was no difference between age, sex or occupation. The median wait from decision to operate to the date of surgery was 6 months and did not differ by age, sex or occupation. However, subjects with more severe symptoms (WOMAC) underwent surgery earlier than did those with less severe disease. CONCLUSION: Although neither of the waiting time components were associated with age, sex or occupation, patients with more severe symptoms appear to be prioritized for surgery.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".