Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients with Parkinson's Disease: A Critical Analysis of Available Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To determine the significance of total knee arthroplasty in patients with Parkinson's disease. Study design: Retrospective study. Place and duration of study: Department of Orthopaedics, Sahara Medical College, Narowal and CMH Kharian Medical College Kharian from 1st July 2020 to 30th September 2022. Methodology: Fifty patients suffered from Parkinson disease which was already diagnosed and the patients attended the Orthopaedic Ward for knee arthroplasty were included. Patients were then followed up till 12 weeks for the clinical analysis of the preoperative and postoperative outcomes of the procedure. Western-Ontario and McMaster-Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Short Form Health Survey-scale, physical component-summary as well as mental-component summary were used for the critical analysis of the patients underwent knee arthroplasty. Knee Society-Score and Knee Society-Function Score determined the deformity, stability, pain and functional analysis. Results: The mean age of the cases was 66.91 ± 6.62 years. There were more females than males in this study with a comparative percentage of 20% vs 80% respectively. There were 60% left knee arthroplasty with 22% in grade IV. Range of motion as well as stability of the patients was also improved. SF-12 also showed a significant improvement in the Physical component-summary and mental-component summary levels. There was a reduction in pain and stiffness analyzed through Western-Ontario and McMaster-Universities Osteoarthritis Index scoring and more flexion as analyzed by range of motion. Conclusion: There is better scoring of patients from pre to postoperative state although still towards lower side and with poor motor functional outcomes. Key words: Ganglion, Neurodegenerative, Arthroplasty, Significance, Analysis
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".