MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599655640 · doi:10.1002/9781444345100.ch15

Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene in Total Hip Arthroplasty

2011· other· en· W1599655640 on OpenAlexaff
Glen Richardson, Michael Dunbar, Joseph P. Corkum

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Orthopedics · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyethyleneOsteolysisIn vivoTribologyTotal hip arthroplastyBearing (navigation)Materials scienceBiomedical engineeringTotal hip replacementCross-linked polyethyleneOrthodonticsComposite materialComputer scienceMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Highly cross-linked polyethylene has been shown to reduce wear rates on tribological simulators and appears to represent a significant improvement over conventional polyethylene. The measurement of in vivo wear of acetabular bearing surfaces, especially at wear rates as low as those predicted on simulators, is difficult to measure with conventional techniques. The difficulty in assessing outcome is magnified by the fact that each manufacturer of highly cross-linked polyethylene uses a different formula to produce a unique product. However, computer enhanced wear estimation programs, in addition to radiostereometric analysis have consistently demonstrated reduced wear rates in vivo, with an associated decrease in osteolysis. Fractures of the material in vivo appear rare. While the mid term in vivo results are very promising, long-term outcomes are necessary to fully assess the efficacy of these materials in total hip arthroplasty.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based OrthopedicsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207