Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metal-on-metal bearing couple is having a resurgence in clinical applications seen in total hip and hip resurfacing technologies. The most noteworthy advantage of a metal-on-metal implant is the improved wear characteristics seen in vitro on wear simulators and in vivo with retrieved implants. All bearings have disadvantages, and a metal-on-metal bearing is no exception. Concerns exist regarding the generation of metal ions seen in the blood and urine of patients with metal-on-metal implants. These elevated metal ions have theoretical, although not proven, risks related to carcinogenic and biologic concerns. Additionally, concerns exist regarding hypersensitivity, increased incidence of instability and increased costs. Specific patient selection issues arise with metal-on-metal implants. The current generation of implants has only early and mid-term results available, with no long-term series yet published. Therefore, although a metal-on-metal bearing may be considered a viable alternative to either polyethylene or ceramic implants, outstanding and unresolved issues continue to exist with this bearing, as they do with the alternatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".