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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".