MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904421404 · doi:10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01381

Hip joint arthroscopy in professionally active patients with osteoarthritis

2018· article· en· W2904421404 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marek Drobniewski, Marek Synder, Michał Skrzypek, Kajetan Pstrągowski, Michał Polguj, Andrzej Borowski

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACMedicineOsteoarthritisHip arthroscopyFemoroacetabular impingementArthroscopyPhysical therapyProspective cohort studySurgeryRadiological weapon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The primary endpoints of the study were to assess the effectiveness of hip joint arthroscopy in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in patients with joint gap stenosis and to determine if and how quickly patients were able to return to work and physical activity. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The prospective study of patients undergoing hip joint arthroscopy due to pain in FAI has been conducted. They were divided into 2 groups depending on the degree of the radiological examination. The criterion was the width of the joint gap. The study group involved 47 patients with hip joint gap of 2-3 mm, identified by means of the standardized X-ray examination. The control group consisted of 45 patients with hip joint gap > 3 mm. The post-operative follow-up period of the patients lasted at least 2 years. In addition, the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire together with Harris Hip Score (HHS) were applied. The patients were also evaluated for the post-operative time period enabling return to work. RESULTS: All the patients after hip joint arthroscopy returned to normal physical activity within 12 weeks after operation, enabling their return to work. However, it should be noted that during the post-operative follow-up, pain sensations either recurred or did not regress in 37 patients in the study group and 12 patients in the control group after treatment. The nearly equal results of the WOMAC questionnaire and HHS before operation significantly vary between both groups in the last follow up. In the study group they did not change expressively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the little invasiveness, hip joint arthroscopy in patients with joint gap stenosis brings about the far from satisfactory results. This procedure is not worth considering. Despite unsatisfactory pain relief, patients decided to returned to work, due to their occupational position and for fear of losing the job due to long absenteeism. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2019;32(1):115-120.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental HealthSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207