Effect of baseline values on inpatient rehabilitation outcomes after total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare inpatient rehabilitation outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between groups with different baseline scores. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. SUBJECTS: Patients with knee osteoarthritis who have previously undergone unilateral TKA. METHODS: Patients participated in 3-week inpatient rehabilitation following TKA and were assessed for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which included the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 5 Level Version (EQ-5D-5L), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Furthermore, mobility scores for the range of motion (ROM) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test were recorded at the beginning and the end of rehabilitation. Patients were divided into quartile groups based on their initial examination scores. RESULTS: 329 patients were enrolled in the study. The study population consisted mostly of female patients (63.8% vs 36.2%) with a mean age of 68.25 (SD 9.24) years. The personalized 21-day in rehabilitation programme was safe for all patients and had no dropouts. Patients with better PROMs scores at T1 did not have the same potential for improvement in PROMs but showed effective improvement in mobility (η² = 0.103 for changes in the WOMAC vs η²=0.502 for changes in the TUG test). CONCLUSION: Regardless of the baseline scores, all patients presented significant improvements in both subjective and objective measures. Age and baseline PROMs or mobility scores did not have a significant effect on score development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".