MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110388664 · doi:10.1097/mrr.0b013e3283352126

Lower limbs function and pain relationships after unilateral total knee arthroplasty

2010· article· en· W2110388664 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maie Tali, Jaak Maaroos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Rehabilitation Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTartu ÜlikoolEesti TeadusfondiMcMaster University
KeywordsOsteoarthritisMedicineGaitRange of motionArthroplastyRehabilitationKnee JointPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationTotal knee arthroplastyGait cycleGait analysisSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to evaluate gait characteristics, lower limbs joint function, and pain relationships associated with knee osteoarthritis of female patients before and 3 months after total knee arthroplasty at an outpatient clinic rehabilitation department. Gait parameters were registered, the active range of lower extremity joints was measured, and pain was evaluated. Gait characteristics, walking velocity, and knee joint's extension improved and pain diminished considerably 3 months after arthroplasty, nevertheless did not reach control group level. In conclusion, single support phase and gait velocity change reflect the recovery of gait function after total knee arthroplasty. Beside the affected knee joint's range of motion, attention should be paid to the restoration of the functional reserve of the adjacent joints and joints of contralateral lower extremity after total knee arthroplasty. Affected knee joint pain perceived during level walking influenced the gait velocity of patients before total knee arthroplasty but not 3 months after 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 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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Rehabilitation ResearchSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207