Anisotropic bone remodeling of a biomimetic metal-on-metal hip resurfacing implant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hip resurfacing (HR) is a highly attractive option for young and active patients. Some surgeons have advocated cementing the metaphyseal stem of the femoral component to improve fixation and survivorship of HR. However, extending component fixation to the metaphysis may promote femoral head strain shielding, which in turn may reduce survival of the femoral component. Replacing the metallic metaphyseal stem by a composite material with bone-matching properties could help to alleviate this phenomenon. This study uses finite element analysis to examine the strain state in the femoral head for three types of implant fixation: an unfixed metallic stem, an osseointegrated biomimetic stem and a cemented metallic stem. Bone remodeling is also simulated to evaluate long-term bone resorption due to strain shielding. Results show that the unfixed stem causes strain shielding in the femoral head, and that cementing the stem increases strain shielding. The biomimetic stem does not eliminate the strain shielding effect, but reduces it significantly versus the metallic cemented version. The current finite element study suggests that an osseointegrated metaphyseal stem made of biomimetic material in hip resurfacing implants could become an interesting alternative when fixation extension is desired.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".