<i>Retracted</i>: Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla Using Short Implants or Sinus Augmentation with Simultaneous Standard‐Length Implant Placement: A 3‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retraction: The following article from Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research , “Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Posterior Maxilla Using Short Implants or Sinus Augmentation with Simultaneous Standard‐Length Implant Placement: A 3‐Year Randomized Clinical Trial”, by Francesco Pieri, Nicolò Nicoli Aldini, Milena Fini, Claudio Marchetti & Giuseppe Corinaldesi, published online on 15 March 2012 in Wiley Online Library ( http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the journal Editors‐in‐Chief, William Becker and Lars Sennerby, and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. The retraction has been agreed due to the failure by the authors to respond to inquiries from the Editors‐in‐Chief regarding the provenance of the Astra implants prior to their release; approval of the study protocol; where the implants were placed; and the names and location of the patients who received the above implants. REFERENCE Francesco Pieri, Nicolò Nicoli Aldini, Milena Fini, Claudio Marchetti, Giuseppe Corinaldesi (2012) Rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla using short implants or sinus augmentation with simultaneous standard‐length implant placement: A 3‐year randomized clinical trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, doi: 10.1111/j.1708‐8208.2012.00451.x
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 | 0.027 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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".