DIFFERENCES IN LOWER LIMB INTERSEGMENTAL CO-ORDINATION IN TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY DURING THE GAIT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study compared thigh-shank and shank-foot coordination during gait before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with controls (CTRL). Twenty-seven patients (male=15/female=12; age=63.2±6.9 years) were evaluated one month prior to and twelve months after surgery, and compared to 27 controls (male=14/female=13; age=62.2±4.3). The participants were outfitted with a full-body marker set. Gait speed (normalized by leg length) was calculated. The time series of the thigh, shank, and foot orientation in relation to the laboratory coordinate system were extracted. The coordination between the thigh-shank and shank-foot in the sagittal plane were calculated using a vector coding technique. The coupling angles were categorized into four coordination patterns. The stance phase was divided into thirds: early, mid, and late stance. The frequency of each pattern and gait speed were compared using a one-way ANOVA with a post-hoc Bonferroni correction. Walking speed and shank-foot coordination showed no differences between the groups. The thigh-shank showed differences. The pre-TKA group showed a more in-phase pattern compared to the CTRL group during early-stance. During mid-stance, the pre- and post-TKA presented a more in-phase pattern compared to the CTRL group. Regarding shank-foot coordination, the groups presented an in-phase and shank pattern, with more shank phase during mid-stance and more in-phase during late-stance. The pre-TKA group showed greater differences than the post-TKA compared to the controls. The more in-phase pattern in the pre- and post-TKA groups could relate to a reduced capacity for the thigh that leads the movement. During mid-stance in normal gait, the knee is extending, where the thigh and shank movements are in opposite directions. The in-phase results in the TKA groups indicate knee stiffness during the stance phase, which may relate to a muscular deficit or a gait strategy to reduce joint stress.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".