Assessment study of how much Egyptian patients are satisfied following total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Advanced stages of Knee OA can be incapacitating as a result of reduced functional range of motion and pain. Joint replacement may be needed for end-stage arthritis. Among the patient-reported outcome measures is patient satisfaction. Objectives: To study patients’ satisfaction one year later of total knee arthroplasty using different outcome measures and scoring systems. Patients & Methods: This was a prospective cohort study that was performed at Menoufia University Hospitals on 132 patients who received primary TKR. All participants were subjected to complete personal and medical history, and general examination including BMI and vital signs (heart, respiratory rate, and blood pressure). Preoperative investigations include CBC, serum creatinine, RBS, Liver function tests), Electrocardiogram, imaging studies such as (knee X-ray, CT, MRI, and bone densitometry). Surgical steps for TKR, postoperative care (hydration, analgesia). Knee joint physiotherapy until discharge. Study tools: Knee Society score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score. Patient satisfaction (The patient is asked if he would recommend total knee replacement for his relatives or not. Visual Analogue Scale). Results: The average age of the study group was 58.47±8.037 years, BMI 28.79±1.364 with 78.7%were females. 72.9% of the study group were satisfied with TKR.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".