Patients waiting for a hip or knee joint replacement: is there any prioritization for surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether patients are prioritized for joint replacement surgery on the basis of severity of osteoarthritis, pain and physical functioning. METHOD: A total of 105 patients on the waiting list for primary total knee or hip replacement from a UK regional orthopaedic centre were interviewed at baseline and followed up at 3, 6 and 9 months or until joint replacement. Measurement tools were the visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index and the Oxford hip or knee score. RESULTS: Most participants (81, 77%) were categorized on the waiting list as 'routine', despite having high levels of pain according to the measurement scales. There was no significant correlation between the waiting list categorization and the actual waiting time for a hip or knee joint replacement operation (Kendall's tau = 0.17; P = 0.062) and the waiting list categorization did not appear to ensure that patients were operated upon earlier. There were also no significant differences in measures (VAS pain, WOMAC and Oxford hip or knee scores) between those individuals who had their operations earlier (before 6 months) compared with those participants who had their operations later (6 months or greater) or even not at all. Of the 105 patients who were listed for joint replacement, 24 (25%) patients did not have their operation due to: a medical delay (14); self-delay/cancellation (7); arthroscopy instead (2); and death (1). CONCLUSION: With the expected increase in demand for joint replacement, there needs to be a re-examination of assessment procedures of patients listed for joint replacement. The use of measurement tools to assess symptoms such as pain and physical function would be one way forward.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".