Comparisons of clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based outcome measure for balance in patients following total hip and knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Information available in the literature on clinically based and laboratory-based outcome measures of balance is limited. How much information is provided by clinically based outcome measures compared to laboratory-based measure in patients with total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) is not known. Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between selected clinically based outcome measures and laboratory-based force platform measure in patients following THA and TKA. Methods: Patients who underwent THA (n = 26) and TKA (n = 28) were evaluated at about 5–7 weeks following surgery. Participants were assessed using four clinically based outcome measures – 1) the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), 2) the Timed Up and Go test (TUG), 3) the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC), and 4) the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index-function subscale (WOMAC-function) – and one laboratory-based force plate measure (95% ellipse area). Results: Moderate correlations were observed between the BBS and the 95% ellipse area of force plate ( r = 0.46–0.51) for the two-legged stance, the anterior lean stance, and the posterior lean stance. Fair correlations were observed between TUG and the 95% ellipse area of force plate ( r = 0.31–0.37) for all the three test conditions. Low correlations were observed for the ABC and the WOMAC-function with the 95% ellipse area of force plate ( r = 0.11–0.25) for all the three test conditions. Conclusion: The BBS demonstrated the greatest correlations with the 95% ellipse area of the force plate measure and should be preferred by physical therapists over the TUG, the ABC, and the WOMAC-function to assess balance in patients with THA and TKA. Keywords: total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, force plate, clinical measures, balance
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".