Biomechanical Analysis of the Medoff Sliding Plate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A new device for fixation of hip fractures the Medoff plate was biomechanically tested and compared with the Ambi plate and Gamma nail. METHODS: Six pairs of human cadaveric femurs were used. The characteristics evaluated were structural stiffness, strain distribution, and modes of failure. Results were compared with the Ambi plate and Gamma nail biomechanical studies from a previous study that used the same methods. RESULTS: The Medoff plate was stiffer than the other two implants for intertrochanteric fractures, and for segmental subtrochanteric fracture. The Medoff plate was more load sharing than the other implants in these fracture configurations. The mean load to failure was lower than for the Ambi plate or the Gamma nail. CONCLUSION: The Medoff plate is a better load-sharing device than the Ambi (DHS) or Gamma nail systems. The main concern is its structural weakness. The implant failed at loads 50% less than other devices. The greatest risk of implant failure is with unstable subtrochanteric fractures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".