Primary total knee arthroplasty in patients receiving workers' compensation benefits.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits on short-term clinical outcomes of primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: In a retrospective matched-cohort study at a single tertiary-care arthroplasty centre in Ontario, we compared a study cohort of 38 successive primary TKA patients receiving WSIB benefits from 1998 to 2002 to 38 controls, a matched cohort of non-WSIB patients, comparing Oxford Knee Score and Knee Society Score (both clinical and functional components) as well as flexion and pain variables, preoperatively and at postoperative intervals of 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. At least 1 year after their surgery, all patients were asked to complete a non-validated patient satisfaction survey. The number of clinic visits related to the operation was also compared, by means of Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan billing codes for each individual. RESULTS: Preoperative measurements showed the 2 groups to be similar. At follow-up, WSIB patients had significantly higher pain scores, poorer self-perceived functional outcomes and a lower range of knee flexion than the control group. WSIB patients also required more postoperative clinic visits and were more reluctant to answer questions about functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term outcomes of primary TKA in patients receiving WSIB benefits are inferior to those of non-WSIB patients. WSIB patients are seen more frequently for postoperative follow-up, which we would attribute to the persistence of subjective complaints after TKA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".