Deficient gait function despite effect index of the Western Ontario and McMaster university osteoarthritis index score considered cured one year after bilateral total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To clarify the value of gait analysis and its consistency with traditional scoring scales for the evaluation of knee joint function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: This study included 25 patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) who underwent bilateral TKA, and 25 conditionally matched healthy individuals, categorised into the experimental and control groups, respectively. Patients in the experimental group underwent gait analysis and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) evaluation before and 1 year after TKA. Weight-bearing balance and walking stability were assessed using discrete trends of relevant gait indicators. Pearson's correlation analysis was performed on the gait and WOMAC score data of the experimental group before and after TKA. RESULTS: One year after TKA, patients' gait indices (except gait cycle) were significantly better than before surgery, but significantly worse than that of the control group (P < 0.01). The shape of patients' plantar pressure curves did not return to normal. Additionally, the discrete trend of related gait indicators reflecting weight-bearing balance and walking stability were smaller than before TKA, but still greater than that of the control group. The WOMAC scores of patients 1 year after TKA were significantly lower than those before TKA (P < 0.001), and the efficacy index was > 80%. The WOMAC scores and gait analysis results were significantly correlated before TKA (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Gait analysis should be used in conjunction with scoring scales to assess joint functions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".