A comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures of TKR: Comparison of Asian to North American patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cultural differences between continents may also affect the outcome on interventions. This study compared an Asian and North American cohort of total knee replacement (TKR) patients. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study aims to compare the patient-reported outcome measures as well as a functional outcome after TKR between these two different patient populations with a different cultural societal background in two different countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study on two cohorts of 76 Asian TKR patients and 64 North American TKR patients were compared. Demographics, patient-reported outcome measures (Knee Society Score (KSS), Patient-Administered Questionnaire (PAQ), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)), knee range of motion (RoM), and radiographic component position were compared. RESULTS: The Asian cohort had more females compared to the North American and significantly worse preoperative RoM, and worse KSS function score and PAQ pain scores. The preoperative KSS knee score and WOMAC scores were comparable between the two groups. Postoperatively, the differences in WOMAC and KSS knee scores were significant, while KSS function and PAQ were comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Even though Asian TKR patients had significantly worse preoperative scores, their postoperative outcomes were comparable to North Americans. The higher preoperative functional deficit and the higher pain levels in the Asian population might be due to cultural differences and/or socioeconomic reasons, which made Asian patients present with more severe conditions in the preoperative consultation for a possible surgical treatment compared to North Americans. More research is needed to investigate the difference between these cultural impacts on TKR outcomes. 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".