No difference in clinical outcome between patient-matched positioning guides and conventional instrumented total knee arthroplasty two years post-operatively
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We wished to compare the clinical outcome, as assessed by questionnaires and the rate of complications, in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) undertaken with patient-matched positioning guides (PMPGs) or conventional instruments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 180 patients (74 men, 106 women; mean age 67 years) were included in a multicentre, adequately powered, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The mean follow-up was 44 months (24 to 57). RESULTS: There were no significant or clinically relevant differences between the two groups for all outcome measures (Knee Society Score, p = 0.807; Oxford Knee Score, p = 0.304; Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index, p = 0.753; visual analogue scale for pain, p = 0.227; EuroQol-5D-3L index score, p = 0.610; EuroQol-5D-3L VAS health, p = 0.968.) There was no difference in the rate of complications (p = 0.291). CONCLUSION: PMPGs are already in relatively common use and their short-term clinical results are equal to conventional instrumented TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:939-44.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it