MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020726228 · doi:10.1115/1.4025468

The Effect of Stem Circumferential Grooves on the Stability at the Implant-Cement Interface

2013· article· en· W2020726228 on OpenAlexaff
Yara K. Hosein, Graham J.W. King, Cynthia E. Dunning

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Devices · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceTorsion (gastropod)Composite materialGroove (engineering)CementInitial stabilityImplantBiomedical engineeringSurgeryMedicineMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The application of stem surface treatments and finishes are common methods for improving stem-cement interface stability in joint replacement systems; however, success of these surfaces has been variable. As opposed to applying a treatment or finish, altering stem design through changing the surface topography of the base stem material may offer some advantages. This study compared the effect of stem circumferential grooving on the torsional and axial stability of cemented stems. Fifteen metal stems were machined from cobalt chrome to have smooth (n = 5) or circumferential-grooved surfaces, where groove depth and spacing was either 0.6 mm (n = 5) or 1.1 mm (n = 5). Stems were potted in aluminum tubes using bone cement, left 24 h to cure, and placed in a materials testing machine for testing using a cyclic staircase loading protocol at 1.5 Hz. All stems were tested independently in compression and torsion on separate testing days, using the same stems repotted with new cement. Motion of the stem was tracked, and failure was defined either as rapid increase in stem motion, or completion of the loading protocol. Statistical analysis was used to compare interface strength and stem motion prior to failure. Grooved stems demonstrated increased interface strength (p < 0.001) and reduced motion (p < 0.01) compared to smooth stems under compression. In torsion, no significant difference was found in strength among the grooved and smooth stems (p = 0.10); however, grooved 1.1 mm demonstrated greatest interface motion prior to catastrophic failure (p < 0.01). Overall, circumferential-grooved stems offered improved stability under compression, and comparable stability in torsion, relative to the smooth stems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical DevicesSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207