How much the leg length has changed after the MOUKA through measurement of the full length radiographs? Beware of splicing error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leg length change after knee arthroplasty is one of the most concerned problems for patients and doctors. However, as there was only one literture focused on the leg length change after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, we aimed to clarify the leg length change after medial mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MOUKA) using a novel double calibration method. METHODS: We enrolled patients who underwent MOUKA and had taken full-length radiographs in a standing position prior to and at 3 months after the operation. We eliminated the magnification by a calibrator and corrected the longitudinal splicing error by measuring the femur and tibia lengths before and after operation. Perceived leg length change was collected 3 months after operation. Bearing thickness, preoperative joint line convergence angle, preoperative and postoperative varus angles, flexion contracture and Oxford knee score (OKS) were also collected. RESULTS: From June 2021 to February 2022, 87 patients were enrolled.76 (87.4%) of them showed an increase with an average of 0.32 cm (range from -0.30 cm to 1.05 cm) in leg length change. The lengthening was strongly correlated with the degree of varus deformity and its correction value (r = 0.81&0.92, P < 0.01). Only 4 (4.6%) patients perceived leg length lengthening after operation. There was no difference in OKS between the patients who had an increase in leg length and those who had a decrease (P = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Majority of patients only experienced a slight increase in leg length after MOUKA, and such an increase did not affect patients' perception and short-term function.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".