Computer Navigation vs Conventional Total Knee Arthroplasty. Five-Year Functional Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy-one patients were randomly allocated to undergo either computer-navigated or conventional arthroplasty. A statistically significant improvement in alignment was seen in the computer-navigated cohort. Five-year functional outcome was assessed using the Knee Society, Short Form-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and a patient satisfaction score. At 5 years, 46 patients were available for assessment (24 navigated and 22 conventional knees). No patients had undergone revision. No statistically significant difference was seen in any component of any measure of outcome between navigated and conventional cohorts. Longitudinal data showed function to be well maintained with no difference in functional score between 2 and 5 years in either cohort. Despite achieving better alignment, 5 years postoperatively, the functional outcome with computer-navigated knee arthroplasty appears to be no different to that implanted using a conventional jig-based technique.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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 it