MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234796282 · doi:10.1097/blo.0b013e3181576035

Role of Obesity on the Risk for Total Hip or Knee Arthroplasty

2007· article· en· W4234796282 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert B. Bourne, Shaheena Mukhi, Naisu Zhu, Margaret Keresteci, Mihaela Marin

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Health InformationWestern University
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsMedicineBody mass indexOverweightObesityArthroplastyPopulationPhysical therapyInternal medicineSurgeryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We asked whether there was an association between obesity levels and subsequent THA or TKA using data from 54,406 THA and TKA patients entered into the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry. We compared these patients with a sample of the Canadian population using the Canadian Community Health Survey of 2006. We analyzed information from the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry to quantify the relative risk for THA or TKA in Canada for specific body mass index categories. In reference to the acceptable weight category of body mass index less than 25 kg/m2, the risk for TKA and THA was 3.20- and 1.92-fold higher, respectively, for overweight individuals (body mass index 25-29.9 kg/m2); 8.53- (TKA) and 3.42-fold (THA) higher for those in the obese Class I (body mass index 30-34.9 kg/m2) category; 18.73- (TKA) and 5.24-fold (THA) higher for those identified in obese Class II (body mass index 35-39.9 kg/m2); and 32.73- (TKA) and 8.56-fold (THA) higher for people in obese Class III group (body mass index > 40 kg/m2). Thus, our data support an association between obesity and subsequent THA and TKA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations279
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207