MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162906435

양측 슬관절 전치환술환자에서 네비게이션을 이용한 최소 침습적 방법과 고식적 방법의 술 후 1년 결과 비교

2007· article· ko· W2162906435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
박상진, 송은규

Bibliographic record

Venue대한정형외과학회지 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical and Thoracic Myelopathy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACMedicineRadiological weaponCoronal planeTotal knee arthroplastySurgeryOsteoarthritisRadiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This study compared the clinical and radiological results using navigation assisted minimally invasive (NA-MIS) and conventional (CON) techniques in forty-two patients, who underwent bilateral TKA with a minimum follow-up of one-year. Materials and Methods: The clinical evaluations were performed using ROM, HSS, and Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) scores at 3, 6 and 9 months, and 1 year after surgery. The patients' subjective preferences and radiological indices, including the mechanical axis and coronal inclinations of the prostheses, were compared at 1 year after surgery. Results: The NA-MIS TKA showed better HSS and WOMAC total scores than CON TKA up to six months. However, these differences were not significant 1 year after surgery. The ROM and other WOMAC scores were comparable in both groups at all times. More patients preferred the NA-MIS side to the CON side. The radiological results showed similar mean values between the two surgical groups, even though the NA-MIS group contained fewer outliers than the CON group. Conclusion: Navigation assisted minimal invasive TKA is associated with better clinical results up to 6 months after surgery and shows fewer outlier results. However, the mean values in leg alignment were similar to those of conventional 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 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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue대한정형외과학회지Same topicCervical and Thoracic MyelopathyFrench-language works237,207