MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022324757 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.h.00331

Intraoperative Periprosthetic Fractures During Total Hip Arthroplasty

2008· review· en· W2022324757 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineImpactionSurgeryTotal hip arthroplastyImplantHip arthroplastyFixation (population genetics)Arthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intraoperative periprosthetic fractures are becoming more common given the increased prevalence of revision total hip arthroplasty and increased use of cementless fixation. Risk factors for intraoperative periprosthetic fractures include the use of minimally invasive techniques; the use of press-fit cementless stems; revision operations, especially when a long cementless stem is used or when a short stem with impaction allografting is used; female sex; metabolic bone disease; bone diseases leading to altered morphology such as Paget disease; and technical errors at the time of the operation. Appropriate treatment of intraoperative periprosthetic fractures does not compromise the long-term results of total hip arthroplasty unless the bone damage precludes stable fixation of the implant.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.253 · 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