Effect of femoral prosthesis flexion angle on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty with mobile platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the flexion angle of a femoral prosthesis on the postoperative clinical outcome of patients with knee osteoarthritis who are undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups according to the flexion angle of the femoral prosthesis following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Group A comprised patients with a flexion angle of the femur prosthesis of less than 5°, Group B included those with a flexion angle of 5° to 10°, and Group C consisted of patients with a flexion angle of the femur prosthesis greater than 10°. The basic clinical data, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and knee range of motion (ROM) were subjected to statistical analysis and comparison between the groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the basic data of the patients in each group. The ROM and VAS scores for the knee in the first month following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in groups B and C were significantly greater than those in group A. The HSS scores for the knee joint in Group B indicated superior outcomes in the initial postoperative month and the third postoperative month, as evidenced by the WOMAC scores, which demonstrated a statistically significant difference between Group B and the other two groups within the six-month postoperative period. CONCLUSION: The short-term recovery of patients in Group B was the fastest. These results provide a new reference for the installation of femoral prostheses in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
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".