MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1932732238 · doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.949044

Wear of a sequentially annealed polyethylene acetabular liner

2014· article· en· W1932732238 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor C. Gascoyne, Martin J. Petrak, Thomas R. Turgeon, Éric Bohm

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Orthopaedica · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaOrthopaedic Innovation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcetabulumPolyethyleneOrthodonticsOrthopedic surgeryProsthesis designSurgeryDentistryComposite materialProsthesisMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We previously reported on a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that examined the effect of adding tobramycin to bone cement after femoral stem migration. The present study examined femoral head penetration into both conventional and highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular liners in the same group of RCT patients, with a minimum of 5 years of postoperative follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Linear penetration of the femoral head into an X3 (Stryker) crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) liner was measured in 18 patients (19 hips) using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). Femoral head penetration was also measured in 6 patients (6 hips) with a conventional polyethylene liner (CPE), which served as a control group. RESULTS: The median proximal femoral head penetration in the XLPE group after 5.5 years was 0.025 mm with a steady-state penetration rate of 0.001 mm/year between year 1 and year 5. The CPE liner showed a median proximal head penetration of 0.274 mm after 7.2 years, at a rate of 0.037 mm/year. INTERPRETATION: The Trident X3 sequentially annealed XLPE liner shows excellent in vivo wear resistance compared to non-crosslinked CPE liners at medium-term implantation. The rate of linear head penetration in the XLPE liners after > 5 years of follow-up was 0.001 mm/year, which is in close agreement with the results of previous studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OrthopaedicaSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207