MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025649591 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.94b11.29343

A prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing ceramic-on-metal and metal-on-metal bearing surfaces in total hip replacement

2012· article· en· W2025649591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rowan Schouten, Alex A. Malone, C. Tiffen, Chris Frampton, Gary J. Hooper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromiumMedicineOsteoarthritisCobaltTotal hip arthroplastyTotal hip replacementFemoral headHip arthroplastySurgeryMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a double-blinded randomised controlled trial, 83 patients with primary osteoarthritis of the hip received either a ceramic-on-metal (CoM) or metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip replacement (THR). The implants differed only in the bearing surfaces used. The serum levels of cobalt and chromium and functional outcome scores were compared pre-operatively and at six and 12 months post-operatively. Data were available for 41 CoM and 36 MoM THRs (four patients were lost to follow-up, two received incorrect implants). The baseline characteristics of both cohorts were similar. Femoral head size measured 36 mm in all but two patients who had 28 mm heads. The mean serum cobalt and chromium levels increased in both groups, with no difference noted between groups at six months (cobalt p = 0.67, chromium p = 0.87) and 12 months (cobalt p = 0.76, chromium p = 0.76) post-operatively. Similarly, the mean Oxford hip scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index and University of California, Los Angeles activity scores showed comparable improvement at 12 months. Our findings indicate that CoM and MoM couplings are associated with an equivalent increase in serum cobalt and chromium levels, and comparable functional outcome scores at six and 12-months follow-up.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · 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.

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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207