Self-reported outcomes of patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery assessed by the WOMAC questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess pain, stiffness and physical function outcomes among patients undergoing total hip replacement using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. METHODS: From January 2009 to July 2010, 64 male and female patients were assessed using the WOMAC questionnaire at baseline, hospital discharge, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up; one group of patients with primary hip osteoarthritis (n = 42) and another group with hip fracture (n = 22). RESULTS: Changes in the total scores of the osteoarthritis group were statistically significant comparing baseline, hospital discharge, 3-month and 6-month assessments, demonstrating continued improvement over time up to 6-month follow-up. The total scores of the hip fracture group demonstrated a worsening from baseline to discharge, followed by improvement. The differences were statistically significant between baseline and discharge, as well as between discharge and the 6-month assessment. No statistically significant differences were found between baseline values and the 3-month assessment or baseline values and the 6-month assessment, demonstrating that the patients returned to their baseline health status after 3 months and maintained this status up to 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire detected changes in outcome following hip replacement surgery among patients with primary diagnoses of hip osteoarthritis and hip fracture, with differences in the pattern of changes between the two groups.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".