MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386423126 · doi:10.3390/prosthesis5030059

Clinical Results of the Use of Low-Cost TKA Prosthesis in Low Budget Countries—A Narrative Review

2023· article· en· W4386423126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Edoardo Bori, Clara Deslypere, Laura Muñoz, Bernardo Innocenti

Bibliographic record

VenueProsthesis · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrative reviewOrthopedic surgeryIndex (typography)MedicineDeveloping countryOperations managementMarketingBusinessEngineeringEconomicsSurgeryEconomic growthComputer scienceIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the orthopedics markets in the US and the EU reaching a plateau, the market size in countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China is steadily growing. As a result, major orthopedic companies are shifting their focus towards these markets and developing products tailored to their needs. However, a significant challenge associated with this new opportunity is the requirement for the development of more affordable prostheses compared to those sold in the US and Europe. With the introduction of these lower-cost models into the market, this article aims to assess their performance in comparison to traditional models. A literature review was conducted, analyzing four parameters—the Hospital for Special Surgery Score, Knee Society Score, Range of Motion, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index—to evaluate different models. The findings indicated that low-cost models perform either equally well or, in some cases, slightly worse than traditional ones. It is worth to mention that the existing literature on this topic is limited, resulting in a relatively small number of models and studies included in this specific study. Nevertheless, this latter serves as a valuable foundation for future in-depth analyses and investigations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProsthesisSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207