Outcomes after total hip replacement based on patients' baseline status: What results can be expected?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated patient satisfaction with total hip replacement (THR) to establish cut points of sufficient improvement based on the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and compared them with measures derived from the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), taking into account patients' baseline status. METHODS: Two cohorts of prospectively recruited patients on waiting lists for THR were studied. Sociodemographic data and comorbidities were recorded. Patients completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and other patient-reported outcomes questionnaires before THR and 6 months afterward. Cut points of sufficient improvement were established by the PASS, ROC, and MCID and were compared. RESULTS: Patients satisfied with THR had, by preintervention WOMAC tertiles, gains of 19.4, 34.1, and 49.3 in the WOMAC pain domain and 17.8, 30.8, and 41.4 in the WOMAC functional limitation domain. The PASS cut points determined were 20, 25, and 25 for postintervention WOMAC pain and 28, 35, and 42 for functional limitation. ROC cut points were 19, 25, and 25 for postintervention pain and 26.4, 39, and 40 for functional limitation. Agreement among cut points classifying patients as responders to THR was 1.0 for pain with both PASS and ROC, and 0.85 for functional limitation; 0.6 for pain between MCID and PASS or ROC, and 0.58 and 0.60 for functional limitation. CONCLUSION: Cut points of expected gain after THR can help clinicians, researchers, and managers to identify suitable candidates for THR, although such measures must be used with caution.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".