Pain, physical functioning and quality of life of individuals awaiting total joint replacement: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate if pain, physical function and the quality of life changed among adults with osteoarthritis while on the waiting list for hip or knee joint replacement. METHODS: A longitudinal study of patients listed for primary hip or knee joint replacement. Participants were interviewed at baseline (n = 105) and followed up at 3 (n = 84), 6 (n = 47) and 9 months (n = 24), or until their joint replacement. Measurement tools used were a visual analogue scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster's Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: Baseline data indicated high levels of pain as measured by VAS [mean 7.0 (SD 2.2)] and WOMAC pain [mean 11.2 (SD 3.5)]. At baseline, the mean physical function measured by WOMAC was 40.3 (SD 12.1). At the 3-month follow-up, there was significant deterioration in VAS pain scores (0.6; 95% CI mean difference 0.3, 1.0); WOMAC pain scores (1.2; 95% CI mean difference 0.7, 1.8) and WOMAC physical function scores (4.8; 95% CI mean difference 2.8, 6.7) compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: The often long wait for joint replacement surgery and deterioration in pain and physical function has highlighted the need for active management by health professionals while patients are on the waiting list.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".