Pre-Arthroplasty Rehabilitation is Effective in Reducing Hospital Stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the trial was to evaluate the effect on length of stay of individually tailored rehabilitation for clients who were undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. METHOD: Clients (n = 133) with complex needs (comorbid conditions or limited social support) were randomly assigned to receive preoperative usual care (UC) or rehabilitation (R). Usual care clients received a single preoperative clinic visit. Rehabilitation clients were individually assessed and received multi disciplinary rehabilitation to optimize functional capacity, education about the in-hospital phase and early discharge planning. All rehabilitation subjects received interdisciplinary counseling/education focused on preparation for discharge home. The intervention for approximately half the rehabilitation clients was a single, cost-effective session, while others received physical conditioning. RESULTS: Clients receiving rehabilitation achieved discharge criteria earlier (R = 5.4, UC = 8 days) and had a shorter actual length of stay (R = 6.5, UC = 10.5 days). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This preoperative, individually tailored, rehabilitation program reduced length of stay.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".