The Value of a Standardized Knee Functional Assessment in Predicting the Outcomes of Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Questionnaires and physical tests are tools to determine the ability of an individual to perform tasks of the daily living. In our institution, a standardized knee performance evaluation including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and physical performance tests has been applied to all patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Our goal was to identify which preoperative tools influence the outcomes of a TKA and if physical performance tests can be of value if used along with PROMs in predicting functional outcomes. Classification and regression tree was used to analyze which preoperative factors influence function after TKA. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) function (WOMAC-F), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and timed up and go (TUG) test at the 12th postoperative month were the dependent variables. Age, body mass index, preoperative WOMAC function and pain score, muscle strength, 6MWT, and TUG test score were used as preoperative predictors of dependent variables. TUG ≤19.3 seconds and age <62 years were preoperative predictors of better scores in the WOMAC-F (5.5). Strength of extensor muscles of the nonoperated knee ≥99.43 N·m/kg and 6MWT> 328 m were preoperative predictors of a better postoperative 6MWT (499 m). TUG <12.3 seconds and 6MWT ≥421 m were preoperative predictors of better postoperative TUG (7.3 seconds). Preoperative performance in physical tests had an influence on postoperative outcome scores than PROMs after TKA. Less age, good muscular strength, greater capacity of walking, and smaller TUG times were associated with better 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".