Sex Matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite broad calls to consider sex-specific effects in treatment/intervention studies, this remains a persistent gap. This study sought to identify presurgery factors associated with pain and physical function following hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis, specifically adopting a sex-stratified approach. Methods: Questionnaires were patient-completed presurgery: sociodemographic and health-related characteristics, anxiety and depression symptoms, neuropathic-like pain symptoms, multijoint involvement, and opioid use. Pain and physical function were captured presurgery and 1 year postsurgery. Study outcomes: pain and function status scores at 1 year and their percentage change (presurgery to 1 year postsurgery). Associations between presurgery factors and outcomes were assessed by sex-stratified multivariable linear regressions. Findings were contrasted against a sex-adjusted approach (i.e. one analysis in combined male/female sample). Results: Sample (45% hip, 55% knee): 787 female patients and 640 male patients. Among male patients only: Depressive symptoms were associated with worse pain and function status, and less pain improvement (β = -8.6% [-17.4%, 0.3%]), as were lower education and living alone. Among female patients only: Anxiety symptoms were associated with worse pain and function status and less pain (β = -7.7% [-14.3%, -1.0%) and functional improvement (β = -8.5% [-14.4%, -2.6%]), as was greater multijoint burden. The negative effect of neuropathic-like pain symptoms was greater in male patients than female patients. Sex-adjusted findings suggested sex had no consequence. Conclusions: Several factors uniquely influenced TJA outcomes by sex. Simple sex-adjustment may miss important effects. This has broad implications, including for patient education, decision making, prognostic/comparative effectiveness study design, and development/improvement of prediction algorithms. Though TJA focused, we hypothesize that sex differences are likely relevant in other clinical populations. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.274 | 0.144 |
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".