MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937828952 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-18-00083

Evaluation of the Painful Total Knee Arthroplasty

2019· review· en· W2937828952 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Flierl, Ali H. Sobh, Brian M. Culp, Erin A. Baker, Scott M. Sporer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical examinationTotal knee arthroplastyModalitiesPhysical therapyEtiologyArthroplastyQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been associated with notable improvements in health-related quality of life of patients with end-stage knee arthritis. Although most patients experience substantial symptomatic relief after TKA, up to 19% of patients are unsatisfied with their outcome. With the dramatic, projected increase in the number of TKAs performed annually, it is crucial to appreciate the various modes of failure associated with this procedure. A comprehensive understanding of the symptomatology and thorough clinical examination aid in identifying the etiology of ongoing knee pain. Ancillary testing including conventional laboratory analyses, imaging studies, and diagnostic injections supplement a thorough history and physical examination. In addition, novel laboratory markers, RNA/DNA-based tests, and novel imaging modalities are emerging as beneficial tools in evaluating patients with a painful TKA. A well-structured, algorithmic approach in the management of these patients is essential in correctly diagnosing the patient and optimizing clinical outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207