How to Choose the Appropriate Posterior Slope Angle Can Lead to Good Knee Joint Function Recovery in Total Knee Arthroplasty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Xi-Qing Pan, Jin-Hui Liu, Jiang-Li Zhang, An Chai, Feng Li, Lei Shu, Wei Zhao Department of Joint Surgery, Third Hospital of Shijiazhuang, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, People’s Republic of ChinaCorrespondence: Jin-Hui Liu, Department of Joint Surgery, Third Hospital of Shijiazhuang, No. 15 Tiyu South Street, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, 050011, People’s Republic of China, Tel +86 13191872146, Fax +86 31185990628, Email jinhuiauliu6@126.comObjective: In this study, we aim to examine the effects of osteotomy under varying posterior slope angles on knee joint function recovery following knee arthroplasty.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis from September 2015 to September 2018 on 240 patients who underwent knee arthroplasty three years previously. The study participants were categorized based on changes in the angle of the posterior slope before and after surgery: Group 1, > 5°; Group 2, 3°– 5°; Group 3, 0°– 3°; Group 4, − 3°– 0°; Group 5, < − 3°. All participants were affected with knee osteoarthritis. The Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSS) knee function score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) knee function score, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score, and postoperative complications were measured 3 years after surgery.Results: The level of pain experienced by the patients decreased significantly than before, with pain scores ranging from 1.0– 3.0, and there was a statistical difference between groups (H = 93.400, P
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".