Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and purpose - Knee and hip replacement are common and increasing procedures, and an optimized care process that could be implemented in different settings would be useful. The PROMISE trial investigates whether a new care process works equally in different German settings and how the results compare with current non-standardized care.Patients and methods - This multi-center prospective mixed-method study includes 2,000 German patients receiving arthritis-related hip or knee endoprostheses. An interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral care process was developed and implemented in 3 German hospitals with different levels of care, and corresponding rehabilitation centers were included to bridge the gap after acute care.Duration and outcome - The PROMISE trial recruited patients between May 2018 and March 2020. Follow-up will end in February 2021. Assessments are performed at: examination on clinical indication, 1 week before surgery, on the day of surgery, at the end of hospitalization, end of the rehabilitation program, and 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. Outcomes include patient-reported outcomes, medical examination findings, and routinely collected data regarding the surgery and complications. Guideline-based interviews are conducted with selected patients and care partners. The primary endpoint is the presence of chronic pain at 12 months after surgery. Secondary endpoints are the number of recognized pre-existing conditions, physical activity at 12 months after surgery, use of medical services, quality of life, and interactions between care partners.Trial registration - The trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (https://www.drks.de; DRKS00013972; March 23, 2018).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".