Effect of morbid obesity on patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty: a minimum of 1-year follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to explore the effect of morbid obesity on patient-reported outcomes in primary total joint arthroplasty. We retrospectively reviewed 755 primary total joint arthroplasty cases with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Two groups were compared: (1) patients with BMI < 40 and (2) those with BMI ≥ 40. The primary outcome was the difference in Short Form-12 physical component summary, Short Form-12 mental component summary, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and patient satisfaction. Multivariate analyses were performed to control for potential confounding factors. 37 patients (5%) were morbidly obese. Morbidly obese patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty had significantly lower net gains in their Short Form-12 physical component summary ( P = .008), Short Form-12 mental component summary ( P = .049), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index ( P = .009) in the first 6 months only. For total hip arthroplasty, morbid obesity did not affect any of the outcomes measured ( P > .05). There was also no difference in patient satisfaction rates between the two groups ( P = .401 and .143 for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, respectively). The impact of morbid obesity on patient-reported outcomes appears to be limited to total knee arthroplasty only in the initial 6 months after surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".