[Evaluation of physical function for the end-stage osteoarthritis patient waiting for the total knee replacement].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To collect comprehensive data of the physical function of the end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) patients, and compare it with patients with mild OA. To evaluate the correlations among pain, self-reported questionnaire, performance based physical function and actual daily life activity level. METHODS: In this prospective study, the comprehensive physical function parameters of 87 end stage OA patients waiting for total knee replacement, and that of 60 patients with mild OA [Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade 0-2] were collected. The comprehensive physical function parameters including: age, height, body weight, 30 s chair stand test (30-CST), 40 m fast-paced walk test (40-FPWT), 12 steps stair climb test (12-SCT), timed up & go test (TUG), 6 minutes walk test (6-MWT), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), knee society score (KSS), visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scale, and everyday steps counts for continuous 7 days. The data were analyzed with the soft ware SPSS 22.0. The descriptive report of all the parameters was made. Because the Kolmogorv-Smirnov test results for all the parameters were negative for normal distribution, nonparative Mann-Whitney test was used to analysis the differences between the two groups, as well as the Spearman test for the correlations. RESULTS: All the parameters of the mild OA group were better than those of the end stage group, and the differences were significant (P<0.05). In the mild OA group, there were no correlations or weak correlations between all the physical function test and questionnaire, however, in the end stage group, the correlations were weak, moderate, or strong. CONCLUSION: The usage of lots of different physical parameters from Chinese OA patients were reported in this study. The results showed that there are no good correlations among performance based physical function test, actual daily activity level, self reported questionnaires, and the pain scales. More comprehensive evaluation for the OA patients needs to be made, in order to make better decision for arthroplasty.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".