Association of Ankle Arthritis Score With Need for Revision Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Ankle Arthritis Score (AAS) is a new patient-reported outcome derived from the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS). This study analyzed longitudinally collected data from a cohort of patients in the Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (COFAS) Ankle Arthritis Study in order to evaluate whether the postoperative AAS is associated with need for revision surgery. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, ankle-reconstruction study enrolled 653 ankles undergoing total ankle replacement (TAR) or ankle arthrodesis (AA). The AAS was given at baseline and annually during postoperative follow-up. Time to revision surgery was modeled using a proportional hazards model. The final sample included 531 ankles in 509 patients. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent metal-component revision and 8 underwent arthrodesis revision during the follow-up time period. The remaining 461 unrevised ankles (300 TAR, 161 AA) had a minimum follow-up of 2 years (average of 3.4 years). Revision surgery after TAR was found to be associated with a higher postoperative AAS and a longer follow-up. The hazard ratio for the AAS indicated that for every 1-point increase in the score, the rate of revision surgery after TAR was 1 percentage point higher. CONCLUSIONS: TAR patients who reported higher levels of postoperative functional impairment, as indicated by a higher AAS, were more likely to require metal-component revision surgery. After adjustment for other patient factors, the risk of revision surgery increased with length of follow-up after TAR. This study provides further evidence for the utility of the AAS in the clinical setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".