Female and Younger Orthopaedic Sport Medicine Patients Are More Negatively Affected by COVID‐19–Related Health Care Closures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To determine whether sex or age influence whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) health care closures affect the health, recovery, and access to resources of preoperative and postoperative orthopaedic sports medicine patients. Methods Electronic questionnaires assessing physical and emotional health, the value of virtual care, and access to resources were distributed to patients with postponed (PP) orthopaedic restorative surgeries and those within 3 months’ postoperative (PO), at the time of the COVID‐19 health care closures. The EQ‐5D‐3L was included as a standardized measure of general health. Chi‐square tests compared responses between sexes and age groups. Unpaired t ‐tests compared the EQ visual analog scale (VAS) by sex, and a one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) compared the EQ VAS by age. Results Females in the PO group were more likely to report that their recovery was delayed (49.5% vs 36%) and that closures had negatively affected their recovery ( P = .013). Females in the PP group reported more symptoms of pain/discomfort on the EQ‐5D‐3L ( P = .023). In the PP group, patients aged 25 to 44 years were most likely to identify pain as a concern ( P = .54). In the PO group, patients younger than 45 years reported a significantly lower mean EQ VAS health state ( P = .017). For the final analysis, there were 115 subjects in the PP group and 198 in the PO group. Conclusion This study demonstrated significant sex‐ and age‐specific differences in health and recovery among orthopaedic sports medicine patients as a result of the COVID‐19 health care closures. Females reported significantly more pain, anxiety, and delay in their rehabilitation, while younger patients reported greater negative impacts and worse overall health state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".