Outcomes of surgical management of total HIP replacement in patients aged 65 years and older: cemented versus cementless femoral components and lateral or anterolateral versus posterior anatomical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This observational study compared the outcomes of 271 cases of hip osteoarthritis receiving primary total hip replacement (patients 65 years of age and older) from numerous surgeons in 12 Baltimore region hospitals from 1991-1993. The independent variables studied were: (a) totally non-cemented prostheses (non-cemented femoral component, non-cemented acetabular component) versus hybrid prostheses (cemented femoral component, non-cemented acetabular component), and (b) lateral or anterolateral surgical approach versus posterior surgical approach. Outcomes included complications during the initial hospitalization, hospital length of stay, hospital cost, readmission, and reported and/or observed physical, instrumental, neuromuscular and affective functioning and pain at 2, 6, and 12 months post surgery. Results indicated that, while the totally non-cemented prosthesis was more costly, there were no statistically significant differences in clinical or functional outcomes between the non-cemented and the hybrid prostheses up to 12 months post surgery. Also, while the posterior surgical approach was associated with a non-statistically significant higher rate of dislocation, overall, there was improved function and reduced pain in the first 12 months post-surgery associated with this approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".