MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418421922

Determinants and outcomes of inpatient versus home based rehabilitation following elective hip and knee replacement.

2000· article· en· W2418421922 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mahomed Nn, Koo Seen Lin Mj, Jérome Lévesque, Lan Shen, Bogoch Er

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACRehabilitationPhysical therapyOsteoarthritisCohortRetrospective cohort studyCohort studyPatient satisfactionQuality of life (healthcare)Orthopedic surgerySurgeryInternal medicineAlternative medicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: There are large variations in practice patterns and costs of rehabilitation following total joint replacement (TJR). We evaluated the determinants of rehabilitation setting (home based vs inpatient) after TJR, and its influence on early functional outcomes. METHODS: We studied a retrospective cohort of 146 primary total hip and knee replacements. Ninety-six patients completed a mailed survey consisting of the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36 (SF-36), and a satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 66 years, 70% were women, and osteoarthritis was the primary diagnosis in 79%. Thirty-nine percent received home based rehabilitation. Determinants of home based rehabilitation included preference for home based rehabilitation, male sex, and knowledge regarding TJR. At a mean followup of 8 months post TJR, there were no significant differences between the inpatient and home based rehabilitation groups with respect to the WOMAC, SF-36, and satisfaction scores. CONCLUSION. These results support continued use of home based rehabilitation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations84
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207