Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Solid Organ Transplant Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study for Aseptic and Infected Revisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that solid organ transplant (SOT) patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) are at an increased risk of postoperative complications. The purpose of this study is to use a large, national database to investigate revision THA (rTHA) outcomes in SOT patients. METHODS: Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) from 2010-2018 was used, and ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes were used to identify all patients who underwent rTHA, including those with history of SOT. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to analyze rTHA outcomes in SOT patients comparted to matched controls. Separate analysis performed for patients undergoing rTHA for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) vs other causes. RESULTS: = .63). CONCLUSIONS: SOT patients undergoing rTHA for aseptic reasons are higher risk of overall readmission but lower risk of readmission related to rTHA than appropriately matched controls. SOT PJI patients undergoing had similar rates of readmission, mortality, and revision surgery compared to matched non-SOT PJI patients.
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) | 0.001 | 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".