Recovery after unilateral knee replacement due to severe osteoarthritis and progression in the contralateral knee: a randomised clinical trial comparing daily 2000 IU versus 800 IU vitamin D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test whether daily high-dose vitamin D improves recovery after unilateral total knee replacement. METHODS: . The primary endpoints were symptoms (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain and function scores) assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months in both knees, and the rate of falls over 24 months. The secondary outcomes were sit-to-stand performance, gait speed, physical activity and radiographic progression in the contralateral knee. RESULTS: We recruited 273 participants, 137 were randomised to receive 2000 IU and 136 were randomised to receive 800 IU vitamin D per day. 2000 IU vitamin D increased 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels to 45.6 ng/mL and 800 IU vitamin D to 37.1 ng/mL at month 24 (p<0.0001). While symptoms improved significantly in the operated knee and remained stable in the contralateral knee over time, none of the primary or secondary endpoints differed by treatment group over time. The rate of falls over 24 months was 1.05 with 2000 IU and 1.07 with 800 IU (p=0.84). 30.5% of participants in the 2000 IU and 31.3% of participants in the 800 IU group had radiographic progression in the contralateral knee over 24 months (p=0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a 24-month treatment with daily 2000 IU vitamin D did not show greater benefits or harm than a daily standard dose of 800 IU among older adults undergoing unilateral total knee replacement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".