MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional outcome after total hip replacement surgery

2023· article· en· W4386210131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Syed Israr Kamal, Lutfar Rahman Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research in Orthopaedics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOrthopedic surgeryHarris Hip ScoreOsteoarthritisPromSurgeryPhysical therapyTotal hip replacementObstetrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Total hip replacement (THR) surgery is a common and effective procedure to alleviate pain and improve function in patients with hip joint disorders, such as osteoarthritis. The aim of this study was to assess the functional outcome after THR surgery. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted in department of orthopedics, medical college for women and hospital and other hospitals in Dhaka, Bangladesh, during the period from March 2017 to March 2022. The sample size was 120. Results: In this study, mean age was 65.3 (SD±9.8) years and majority (52.5%) were male. At the 12-month follow-up, PCS scores improved, while MCS scores slightly decreased. Physical function, mental health, and PROM scores of Harris hip score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), and EQ-VAS showed significant improvements. Gait speed exhibited a minor decrease. The complications observed included superficial infection in 6 patients (5.0%), femoral nerve palsy in 9 patients (7.5%), hip dislocation in 7 patients (5.8%) and etc. Overall, 81.67% had an excellent functional outcome, 11.67% had a good outcome, and 6.67% had a fair outcome after surgery. Conclusions: The findings of our study demonstrate significant improvements in functional outcomes and PROMs following THR surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research in OrthopaedicsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207