MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Objectively measured activity behaviours using the ActivPAL accelerometer following robotic and manually performed total knee arthroplasty

2025· article· en· W4410909219 on OpenAlex
Bola Ajekigbe, Jayasree Ramaskandhan, Steven Galloway, Karen Smith, David J. Weir, David J. Deehan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBone and Joint Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersStryker
KeywordsMedicineWOMACPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialSittingOsteoarthritisVisual analogue scaleTotal knee arthroplastySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: To assess whether it was feasible to objectively measure activity behaviour between robotic arm-assisted (raTKA) and manually performed (mTKA) total knee arthroplasty using the ActivPAL accelerometer. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was undertaken and a subgroup of 40 patients underwent physical activity assessment. Patients were randomized to either mTKA (n = 18) or raTKA (n = 22). Preoperative (baseline) and 12-month postoperative physical activity assessment were undertaken using the ActivPAL accelerometer in addition to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS). At 12 months, 15 patients in the raTKA group and nine in the mTKA group had paired ActivPAL data for analysis. Of the 16 patients without data, four withdrew, four were not provided with the ActivPAL due to logistical reasons, one failed to return the ActivPAL, one was allergic to the ActivPAL patch, and six failed to record or the data were corrupt. Results: There were no significant differences in the improvement in standing time (mean difference (MD) 1.6, p = 0.924), step number (MD 62.0, p = 0.970), sitting time (16.3, p = 0.777), number of sit-to-stand transitions (MD 16.3, p = 0.579), or activity scores (MD 0.0, p = 0.977) between the groups. However, the raTKA had a clinically meaningful and significantly (MD 19.8, 95% CI 0.8 to 38.8; p = 0.041) greater improvement in knee-specific pain according to the WOMAC pain score. There were no other statistically significant (p ≥ 0.113) differences between the other PROMs. There were no significant (p ≥ 0.144) correlations between changes in measures of physical activity functional assessments. Conclusion: Objectively assessed physical activity was logistically difficult due to patient and data loss. There were no differences in activity with small effect sizes (≤ 0.2) between the raTKA and mTKA groups, despite differences in subjective knee pain. Improvement in subjective PROMs did not correlate with objectively measured physical activity, and the two seemed to be independent of one another.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it