Impact of Depressive Symptomology on Pain and Function during Recovery after Total Joint Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of preoperative depressive symptoms on patient-reported function and pain following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) after controlling for potential confounding factors; how depressive symptoms changed after TJA; and the impact of postoperative depressive symptoms on recovery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study undertaken in a metropolitan region in Canada enrolled 710 participants; 622 (87%) had complete 6-month data. Participants completed standardized measures preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and function. Three groups were created: depressive symptoms absent (n = 573, 82%), possible depressive symptoms (n = 58, 8%), and probable depressive symptoms (n = 68, 10%) using the Center for Epidemiologic Scale for Depression score. Risk-adjusted analyses examined the association between WOMAC change and the preoperative Center for Epidemiologic Scale for Depression score. RESULTS: After risk adjustment, preoperative possible and probable depressive symptomology was associated with postoperative WOMAC pain scores that were 7.6 and 11.7 points, respectively, worse and WOMAC function scores that were 8.8 and 14.3 points, respectively, worse than those without preoperative depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms improved postoperatively; by 6 months post-TJA, only 34 (5%) participants screened as having probable depressive symptoms, whereas only 13(2%) had possible depressive symptoms. Postoperative WOMAC pain and function scores improved, but they were negatively affected by possible and probable depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Although depressive symptoms improve postoperatively, preoperative depressive symptoms, especially for those with probable depressive symptomology, may negatively affect postoperative pain and functional recovery even after risk adjustment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".