Evaluation of Medial Open Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in Osteoarthritis of Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study Design: Prospective and Interventional Randomized Comparative Study. Duration of study: 18 months. Objective: 1. To estimate pain relief in a patient with primary degenerative osteoarthritis of knee after medial open wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) using visual analog scale(VAS). 2. To assess the change in femorotibial angle, weight bearing line deviation and tibial slope pre and post operatively. 3. To compare pre- and post-operative WOMAC (The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) index. Methodology: This study is a prospective analysis of patients with the requisite inclusion criteria, done over 18 months in the Central Institute of Orthopaedics, VMMC & SJH, and New Delhi. It includes a total of 20 patients who were followed up for 6 months. After initial preoperative evaluation, they underwent medial open wedge HTO for primary degenerative osteoarthritis of knee. Post operatively, patients were assessed clinically, functionally and radiologically for the benefits & drawbacks of this technique. This study is used to compare the clinical, radiological and functional improvement using this technique in patients pre-operatively and post-operatively. Observation and Result: Based on our observation we conclude that the study suggest that medial open wedge HTO using TomoFixTM should be recommended for treatment of primary degenerative osteoarthritis of knee primarily involving the medial compartment of knee.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".