Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the >20-year outcomes of cemented (n=124) versus cementless (n=126) total hip replacements (THRs) in patients with end-stage, unilateral hip osteoarthritis. At 20 years, 168 patients (67%) were available for follow-up, 78 (31%) had died, and 4 (2%) were lost. A power analysis was performed to determine the number of patients needed in each study cohort. Patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively by validated disease-specific Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Score, patient-specific McMaster Arthritis Score, global health (sickness impact profile), functional capacity (6-minute walk), and cost utility (cost-to-quality adjusted life years). Patients were followed every 2 years clinically and radiographically.The cementless THR outperformed its cemented counterpart in terms of overall (P=.01), socket (P=.009), and stem (P<.0001) Kaplan-Meier survivorships. Patients younger than 65 years had significantly poorer cemented and cementless socket survivorships, and male sex adversely affected cementless socket survivorship. The cementless tapered stem had 100% survivorship with aseptic loosening as the endpoint at 20 years. Although this study has demonstrated the superiority of the cementless THR over its cemented counterpart, care must be taken in generalizing these results to other cemented and cementless THRs.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".