The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-Metal Hip Resurfacing versus Large-diameter Head Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Full frame distilled prediction

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.

Candidate categories

Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)

Consensus categories

none

Domain

Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none

Study design

Candidate signal: Other designConsensus signal: none

Genre

Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical

Teacher disagreement score

0.882

Threshold uncertainty score

1.000

Validation status

machine_predicted_unvalidated · codex-gemma-dda1882f352a

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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.

Teacher spread

0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work

Validation status

score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Abstract

UNLABELLED: Resurfacing arthroplasty has become an attractive option for young patients who want to maintain a high activity level. One recent study reported modestly increased activity levels for patients with resurfacing compared to standard total hip arthroplasty (THA). We conducted a prospective randomized clinical trial to compare clinical outcomes of resurfacing versus large-head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. We randomized 107 patients deemed eligible for resurfacing arthroplasty to have either resurfacing or standard THA. Patients were assessed for quality-of-life outcomes using the PAT-5D index, WOMAC, SF-36, and UCLA activity score. The minimum followup was 0.8 years (mean, 1.1 years; range, 0.8-2.2 years). Of the 73 patients followed at least one year, both groups reported improvement in quality of life on all outcome measures. There was no difference in quality of life between the two arms in the study. Serum levels of cobalt and chromium were measured in a subset of 30 patients. In both groups cobalt and chromium was elevated compared to baseline. Patients receiving a large-head metal-on-metal total hip had elevated ion levels compared to the resurfacing arm of the study. At 1 year, the median serum cobalt increased 46-fold from baseline in patients in the large-head total hip group, while the median serum chromium increased 10-fold. At 1 year, serum cobalt was 10-fold higher and serum chromium 2.6-fold higher than in the resurfacing arm. Due to these excessively high metal ion levels, the authors recommend against further use of this particular large-head total hip arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized clinical trial. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

The record

Venue

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Topic

Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Field

Medicine

Canadian institutions

McGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia

Funders

not available

Keywords

MedicineHip resurfacingWOMACArthroplastySurgeryTotal hip arthroplastyProspective cohort studyUrologyOsteoarthritis

Has abstract in OpenAlex

yes

API

/api/v1/works/W2054893537