The development and validation of a multivariable model to predict whether patients referred for total knee replacement are suitable surgical candidates at the time of initial consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In previous studies, 50%-70% of patients referred to orthopedic surgeons for total knee replacement (TKR) were not surgical candidates at the time of initial assessment. The purpose of our study was to identify and cross-validate patient self-reported predictors of suitability for TKR and to determine the clinical utility of a predictive model to guide the timing and appropriateness of referral to a surgeon. METHODS: We assessed pre-consultation patient data as well as the surgeon's findings and post-consultation recommendations. We used multivariate logistic regression to detect self-reported items that could identify suitable surgical candidates. RESULTS: Patients' willingness to undergo surgery, higher rating of pain, greater physical function, previous intra-articular injections and patient age were the factors predictive of patients being offered and electing to undergo TKR. CONCLUSION: The application of the model developed in our study would effectively reduce the proportion of nonsurgical referrals by 25%, while identifying the vast majority of surgical candidates (> 90%). Using patient-reported information, we can correctly predict the outcome of specialist consultation for TKR in 70% of cases. To reduce long waits for first consultation with a surgeon, it may be possible to use these items to educate and guide referring clinicians and patients to understand when specialist consultation is the next step in managing the patient with severe osteoarthritis of the knee.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".