MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038019724 · doi:10.1515/cclm-2012-0492

Metal release from hip prostheses: cobalt and chromium toxicity and the role of the clinical laboratory

2012· review· en· W2038019724 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathon R. Campbell, Mathew P. Estey

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineChromiumCobaltImplantAdverse effectMetallosisDentistrySurgeryArthroplastyMaterials scienceInternal medicineMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individuals with advanced hip disease suffer from pain, impaired hip function, and decreased quality of life. Roughly one million metal-on-metal (MoM) hip prostheses have been implanted worldwide in order to ameliorate these issues. While most MoM hip replacements are successful, some patients suffer from serious adverse effects secondary to the release of metal debris due to implant wear and corrosion. MoM hip prostheses are comprised predominantly of cobalt and chromium, and the serum concentration of these metal ions has been shown to correlate with both implant wear and the accumulation of metal debris in the periprosthetic tissue. Consequently, measurement of cobalt and chromium concentrations may be useful in the assessment of implant function and the potential for adverse effects in the follow-up of patients with MoM hip prostheses. The purpose of this Mini Review is to describe the adverse biological consequences of metal release from hip prostheses, provide an overview of the clinical utility of cobalt and chromium measurement and the current recommendations for testing, and alert laboratorians and physicians to the many challenges associated with measuring these metal ions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.007
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations68
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207