MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biological and mechanical changes of the bone graft–cement interface after impaction allografting

2005· article· en· W1995353154 on OpenAlexafffund
Hanspeter Frei, John X. OʼConnell, Bassam A. Masri, Clivе P. Duncan, Thomas R. Oxland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedullary cavityImpactionMedicineCementBone remodelingCortex (anatomy)Composite numberCortical boneDentistryAnatomyMaterials scienceInternal medicineComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In impaction allografting, the host bone interface may consist of morsellized allograft alone or as a composite with bone cement. The objective of this study was to investigate the temporal changes in the interface for these two materials in a rat bone chamber model. To simulate the impaired endosteal circulation after impaction allografting, bone chambers were tightened bilaterally to the endosteal surfaces of proximal tibiae of mature rats and filled with pure allograft or cement/allograft composite. The cement/allograft composite-host bone interface strength was significantly higher at 3 weeks and was higher than the allograft construct failure strength. Limited allograft, but extensive periosteal remodeling, was observed at 3 weeks which resulted in a significantly increased cortical porosity and cortical thickness. The allograft porosity decreased significantly at 6 weeks indicating extensive remodeling of the allograft bone. Little or no remodeling of the allograft particles in the cement was found. At 6 weeks a new medullary canal was formed, and the endosteal cortex was partially absorbed. Endosteal absorption resulting in medullary canal widening in revision THR may be responsible for clinically unstable stems after impaction allografting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207