Reliable prediction of implant size and axial alignment in AI-based 3D preoperative planning for total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The size and axial alignment of prostheses, when planned during total knee replacement (TKA) are critical for recovery of knee function and improvement of knee pain symptoms. This research aims to study the effect of artificial intelligence (AI)-based preoperative three dimensional (3D) planning technology on prosthesis size and axial alignment planning in TKA, and to compare its advantages with two dimensional (2D) X-ray template measurement technology. A total of 60 patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) who underwent TKA for the first time were included in the AI (n = 30) and 2D (n = 30) groups. The preoperative and postoperative prosthesis size, femoral valgus correction angle (VCA) and hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) were recorded and compared between the two groups. The results of the University of Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the American Knee Association Score (AKS) were evaluated before surgery, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. The accuracy of prosthesis size, VCA and HKA prediction in AI group was significantly higher than that in 2D group (P < 0.05). The WOMAC and AKS scores in AI group at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months after surgery were better than those in 2D group (P < 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement in WOMAC and AKS scores at 12 months follow-up. AI-based preoperative 3D planning technique has more reliable planning effect for prosthesis size and axial alignment in TKA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".