Revision of the Acetabular Components: Role of Structural Bulk Allografts and Porous Tantalum Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of revising a loose acetabular component of a total hip arthroplasty is to provide a stable construct that alleviates pain and restores lost function. Loosening of a primary acetabular component can be associated with significant periacetabular bone loss. Acetabular components may be fixed without graft if the majority of the surface of the component remains covered by host bone. The use of large solid structural bone grafts is indicated where large segmental defects exist and a new acetabular component cannot be placed against sufficient host bone for stability. Porous tantalum (trabecular metal) acetabular shells have been popularised as an alternative to structural allografting. Further studies with long term follow up will elucidate whether trabecular metal constructs can provide a durable solution to the reconstruction of complex acetabular defects. Bulk structural allografting remains a valid option for bone stock restoration in younger patients where future revision arthroplasties are likely.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".