Erratum to: One Intraoperative Dose of Tranexamic Acid for Patients Having Primary Hip or Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erratum to: Clin Orthop Relat Res DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-1217-8 It has been brought to our attention by one of the online readers that there is an error in the Abstract and Results sections of our manuscript. We meant to say that the decrease in hemoglobin was less in 2008 than in 2007—as shown by the data in Table 2 and hence indicating, as the Discussion correctly points out, that the TEA protocol seems to reduce the perioperative decrease in hemoglobin when compared with a similar cohort of patients who did not receive TEA. The first sentence in the Results section of the Abstract currently states: We found a reduction in the decrease in hemoglobin in 2007 compared with 2008 for THA and TKA (46 to 39 g/L and 45 to 36 g/L, respectively), which led to a reduction in transfusion rates (13.5% to 3.6% and 13.1% to 2.0%, respectively and higher hemoglobin levels at discharge. The first sentence in the Results section of the Abstract should be: We found a reduction in the decrease in hemoglobin in 2008 compared with 2007 for THA and TKA (39 from 46 g/L and 36 from 45 g/L, respectively), which led to a reduction in transfusion rates (3.6% from 13.5% and 2.0% from 13.4%, respectively) and higher hemoglobin levels at discharge. The first sentence in the Results section of the manuscript currently states: The decrease in hemoglobin was less in 2007 than in 2008 for patients who had THAs and TKAs (46 to 39 g/L [p < 0.001] and 45 to 36 g/L [p < 0.001] respectively) (Table 2). The first sentence in the Results section of the manuscript should be: The decrease in hemoglobin was less in 2008 than in 2007 for patients who had THAs and TKAs (39 from 46 g/L [p < 0.001] and 36 from 45 g/L [p < 0.001], respectively) (Table 2). We apologize for this error.
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 | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
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".