MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389438634 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.oa.23.00077

Assessment of Residual Pain and Dissatisfaction in Total Knee Arthroplasty

2023· article· en· W4389438634 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Open Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMinimal clinically important differenceOsteoarthritisWOMACPhysical therapyResidualProspective cohort studyMetric (unit)SurgeryRandomized controlled trialAlternative medicineMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Residual pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) refers to knee pain after 3 to 6 months postoperatively. The estimates of the proportion of patients who experience residual pain after TKA vary widely. We hypothesized that the variation may stem from the range of methods used to assess residual pain. We analyzed data from 2 prospective studies to assess the proportion of subjects with residual pain as defined by several commonly used metrics and to examine the association of residual pain defined by each metric with participant dissatisfaction. Methods: We combined participant data from 2 prospective studies of TKA outcomes from subjects recruited between 2011 and 2014. Residual pain was defined using a range of metrics based on the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) pain score (0 to 100, in which 100 indicates worst), including the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). We also examined combinations of MCID and PASS cutoffs. Subjects self-reported dissatisfaction following TKA, and we defined dissatisfied as somewhat or very dissatisfied at 12 months. We calculated the proportion of participants with residual pain, as defined by each metric, who reported dissatisfaction. We examined the association of each metric with dissatisfaction by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and Youden index. Results: We analyzed data from 417 subjects with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 66.3 ± 8.3 years. Twenty-six participants (6.2%) were dissatisfied. The proportion of participants defined as having residual pain according to the various metrics ranged from 5.5% to >50%. The composite metric Improvement in WOMAC pain score ≥20 points or final WOMAC pain score ≤25 had the highest positive predictive value for identifying dissatisfied subjects (0.54 [95% confidence interval, 0.35 to 0.71]). No metric had a Youden index of ≥50%. Conclusions: Different metrics provided a wide range of estimates of residual pain following TKA. No estimate was both sensitive and specific for dissatisfaction in patients who underwent TKA, underscoring that measures of residual pain should be defined explicitly in reports of TKA outcomes. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.363 · 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