Unveiling distinct kinematic profiles among total knee arthroplasty candidates through clustering technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Characterizing the condition of patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis is complex due to multiple associations between clinical, functional, and structural parameters. While significant variability exists within this population, especially in candidates for total knee arthroplasty, there is increasing interest in knee kinematics among orthopedic surgeons aiming for more personalized approaches to achieve better outcomes and satisfaction. The primary objective of this study was to identify distinct kinematic phenotypes in total knee arthroplasty candidates and to compare different methods for the identification of these phenotypes. METHODS: Three-dimensional kinematic data obtained from a Knee Kinesiography exam during treadmill walking in the clinic were used. Various aspects of the clustering process were evaluated and compared to achieve optimal clustering, including data preparation, transformation, and representation methods. RESULTS: A K-Means clustering algorithm, performed using Euclidean distance, combined with principal component analysis applied on data transformed by standardization, was the optimal approach. Two unique kinematic phenotypes were identified among 80 total knee arthroplasty candidates. The two distinct phenotypes divided patients who significantly differed both in terms of knee kinematic representation and clinical outcomes, including a notable variation in 63.3% of frontal plane features and 81.8% of transverse plane features across 77.33% of the gait cycle, as well as differences in the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, highlighting the impact of these kinematic variations on patient pain and function. CONCLUSION: Results from this study provide valuable insights for clinicians to develop personalized treatment approaches based on patients' phenotype affiliation, ultimately helping to improve total knee arthroplasty outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".