Periarticular joint arthritis after ankle replacement vs. ankle arthrodesis. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To complete a comprehensive literature review to determine the quantity and quality of literature supporting the incidence of IPJA after AA and TAR. Methods: A comprehensive review was performed to determine the quantity and quality of literature supporting the incidence of IPJA after AA and TAR. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23 TAR and 19 AA studies were included. Results: Only one high-quality level I was found, reporting 1.2% of IPJA after TAR. Majority of the studies were level IV and reported an incidence of subtalar arthritis of 0%-40%, talonavicular 2.8%-34%, and calcaneocuboid 2.8%-3.2% after TAR and an incidence of subtalar arthritis of 7.7%-100%, talonavicular 8.69%-11.6%, and calcaneocuboid of 22% after AA. Conclusion: There is currently poor quality evidence supporting a higher rate of IPJA after AA compared to TAR. Also there is poorquality evidence that supports IPJA as a complication of TAR; however, this is the current evidence on this topic. Better-quality longterm studies are required to make definitive and accurate conclusions on the incidence of IPJA.Level of Evidence III; Therapeutic Studies; Systematic Review.
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 | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".