Depression Is Not Independently Associated with a Clinically Worse Functional Improvement but Associated with a Lower Reported Satisfaction Rate after Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to assess whether depression had a clinically significant influence on the functional improvement of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) according to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and whether it influences patient satisfaction at 1 year. A retrospective cohort of 3,510 primary TKA was identified from an arthroplasty database. Patient demographics, comorbidities, WOMAC, and Short Form-12 (SF-12) scores were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction (overall, pain relief, return to work, and recreational activity) was assessed at 1 year. There were 444 (12.6%) patients who self-reported depression. Patients with depression were younger (p < 0.001), had a higher body mass index (BMI; p < 0.001), were more likely to be female (p < 0.001), had lung (p < 0.001), neurological (p = 0.018), kidney (p = 0.001), liver (p < 0.001), and gastric (p < 0.001) disease, report associated diabetes (p = 0.001), and back pain (p < 0.001) relative to the subgroup without depression. All preoperative WOMAC functional measures were significantly (p < 0.001) worse in patients with reported depression. When adjusting for these confounding differences, patients with depression had a clinically equal improvement in their WOMAC scores at 1 year compared to those patients without. Depression was not associated with a clinically significant difference in improvement of knee-specific outcome (WOMAC) but was independently associated with a lower rate of patient satisfaction 1 year after TKA. Patients with depression were approximately twice as likely to be dissatisfied at 1 year when compared with those without depression. This is a prognostic retrospective cohort study and reflects level of evidence III.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".