MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388691932 · doi:10.1093/jhps/hnad034

Intraoperative traction has a negligible time-dependent influence on patient-reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy: a cohort study

2023· article· en· W4388691932 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob D Feingold, Thacher Ryan R., Adit R. Maniar, Stefan Mitrasinovic, Samarth Venkata Menta, Anil S. Ranawat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hip Preservation Surgery · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHip arthroscopyMinimal clinically important differenceFemoroacetabular impingementPromPhysical therapyPercentileCohortCohort studyPopulationPatient-reported outcomeProspective cohort studySurgeryArthroscopyQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The aim of this study is to determine if post-operative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are influenced by hip arthroscopy traction duration. Patients from a local prospective hip arthroscopy database were retrospectively analyzed. Four hip-specific PROMs were utilized: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score—Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score—Sports Specific (HOS-SS), and international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT). PROMs were collected pre-operatively and 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operatively. Two cohorts were created based on a cut-off corresponding to the 66th percentile for our patient cohort. Analyses were completed for each PROM at each post-operative interval with univariable statistics. Multivariable statistics were examined to identify the variables that were predictive of achieving post-operative minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at the 2-year follow-up. Overall, 222 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 32.4 ± 9.4 years, and 116 (52.3%) were female. The average traction time of the study population was 46.1 ± 12.9 min. A total of 145 patients were included in the short traction cohort (65%) with traction times of <50 min (66th percentile). No significant differences were found regarding PROM scores or MCID achievement rates between both cohorts at any post-operative period. In multivariable analyses, achievement of MCID was predicted by a decrease in traction time for all PROMs and pincer-type resection for mHSS, HOS-ADL and iHOT. There was no difference in PROMs and MCID achievement between longer and shorter traction time cohorts. On multivariable analysis, a decrease in traction time is predictive of MCID for all PROM scores and pincer-type resection was predictive of MCID for most PROM scores. Level of evidence: Level III, cohort study

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hip Preservation SurgerySame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207