MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Periprosthetic Fractures Evaluation and Treatment

2004· review· en· W2023679626 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineSurgeryArthroplastyOrthopedic surgeryImplantComplication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Periprosthetic fracture is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) that can be difficult to treat, and can be potentially fraught with complications. The incidence of such fractures is increasing, especially after the use of cementless revision arthroplasty. The prevention of these fractures is achieved by understanding the risk factors involved. If the risks are not understood, the best outcome is achieved when the surgeon has a thorough understanding of the principles of treatment of these fractures and has access to various fixation and prosthetic devices, and allograft bone when necessary. Acetabular fractures are rare and relatively little has been reported on their treatment. Periprosthetic femoral fracture treatment is based on the site of fracture, implant stability, and bone stock. The Vancouver classification offers a reproducible description of these factors with the subsequently easy formation of a treatment plan.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.303 · 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