MonitOring the health trajectory of patients with kNee osteoarthritis referred for orthopaedic opinion: Protocol for the MOTION parallel cohort-implementation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This parallel cohort-implementation study, termed MonitOring the health Trajectory of patients with kNee osteoarthritis (MOTION), aims to understand treatment pathways and outcomes for people with knee osteoarthritis referred to Australian public hospitals for orthopaedic assessment (Part A cohort study), and how improving access to first-line care might improve outcomes (Part B implementation study). Methods and analysis: We will recruit approximately 400 adults with knee osteoarthritis referred for orthopaedic opinion to one of four public hospitals in Victoria, Australia. A subgroup enrolled in the study (n = 109) will receive improved access to community-based first-line care. Outcomes will be evaluated at baseline, 4-, 8-, 12- (primary end point), 24- and 60-months. The primary outcome will divide the cohort into 1's (willing to undergo, waitlisting for, or undergone, TKR surgery) or 0's (not willing to undergo, not undergone, and not waitlisted for, TKR surgery). Secondary outcomes include pain, knee- and health-related quality of life, physical activity participation and health care utilisation. Surgical and health trajectories will be reported descriptively, with factors associated with outcomes explored. The effectiveness of improving access to first-line care will be determined through propensity score methods. The cost-effectiveness of improving access to first-line care will be also be determined, and semi-structured interviews (1:1 and focus groups) involving participants, health professionals, administrators, and research team will inform a comprehensive process evaluation. Ethics and dissemination: Approved by St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 251/21). Findings will be disseminated to stakeholders including via conferences, peer-reviewed journals, and social and mainstream media.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".