Osseointegration of Hydroxyapatite Porous-Coated Femoral Implants in a Canine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the quality and quantity of osseointegration of two thicknesses of hydroxyapatite coating on press-fit, porous-coated titanium implants in a canine hip model. In 12 dogs, titanium press-fit porous-coated prostheses were implanted. The stems had a 50-microm thickness hydroxyapatite coating, 100-microm thickness hydroxyapatite coating, or no hydroxyapatite coating. The animals were randomized into one of three groups and received one of the three implants. The implants were retrieved and examined 4 months after implantation. Direct juxtaposition of bone to the surface of the hydroxyapatite-coated implants with no intervening fibrous tissue layer was observed. There was no histologic evidence that hydroxyapatite initiated any foreign body reaction, nor was there any irregularity or resorption of the hydroxyapatite coating. There was a statistically significant greater degree of total bone apposition and bone ingrowth in the implants coated with hydroxyapatite at the level of the isthmus and the calcar. No statistical difference was found between the two groups with hydroxyapatite coatings in the degree of bone ingrowth or bone apposition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".