MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412493903 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.25.00067

Wearable Technology in Orthopaedic Surgery: Applications and Future Directions

2025· review· en· W4412493903 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWearable computerSmartwatchMedicineWearable technologyWorkflowAccelerometerRehabilitationInertial measurement unitHuman–computer interactionKey (lock)Computer sciencePhysical therapyEmbedded systemArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

» Wearable technologies (wearables), including smartphones, smartwatches, and sensors, such as accelerometers and inertial measurement units, enable continuous, real-time, and objective data collection on physical function, health behaviors, and patient perceptions.» Wearables can track mobility metrics such as step count, activity duration, and joint range of motion, providing valuable longitudinal insights into recovery trajectories.» In orthopaedic surgery, wearables support timely, personalized patient education and improve communication between patients and surgical teams, contributing to better functional outcomes and patient satisfaction.» Smart implants and virtual/augmented reality systems are emerging as innovative approaches to enhancing engagement and adherence during postoperative rehabilitation.» Key challenges to implementation include concerns about data privacy, accessibility, and integration into clinical workflows.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.311 · 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