MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Impact of early rehabilitation post hip replacement on functional recovery: A clinical research

2025· article· W7152126445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mikko Korhonen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKarolinska Institutet
KeywordsRehabilitationOrthopedic surgeryRange of motionArthroplastyOsteoarthritisHarris Hip ScoreHip surgeryHip replacement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delayed rehabilitation after total hip replacement wastes the single most time-sensitive recovery window available to orthopedic patients. This prospective clinical research compared functional outcomes between early rehabilitation initiated within 72 hours of surgery and standard rehabilitation beginning five or more days postoperatively in 214 patients who underwent primary unilateral total hip arthroplasty at two Swedish academic hospitals between April 2019 and October 2020. Patients were allocated to early rehabilitation (n=107) or standard rehabilitation (n=107) based on surgical scheduling and rehabilitation slot availability at the time of their admission. The primary outcome was the Harris Hip Score assessed at six months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the Timed Up-and-Go test, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score, six-minute walk distance, visual analog pain scale, and goniometric hip range of motion measurements collected at standardized intervals. At six months, the early rehabilitation group achieved a mean Harris Hip Score of 81.4 compared to 72.6 in the standard group (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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.384 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→