MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058658315 · doi:10.1016/s0749-8063(03)00536-x

Paper #135 Patello‐femoral joint replacement

2003· article· en· W2058658315 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsArthritis Research Centre of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatellofemoral jointOsteoarthritisWOMACPatellaRadiological weaponSurgeryArthroplastyKnee replacementProsthesisDysplasiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

McKeever first reported on the use of a patellar prosthesis in 1955. Blazina first reported on patellofemoral replacement in 1979. The success rate of the procedure ranges from 70% to 94% depending on the author. We are reporting a retrospective study of 38 knees treated with patellofemoral arthroplasty between 1980 and 1997. Patients were assessed by questionnaire and clinical examination. Objective measures using the knee society score, the Hungerford-Kenna score and WOMAC score were performed. Radiological examination, as well as a survivorship analysis were performed. The average age at operation was 58 years with an average follow up of 9 years. Surgery was performed for isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis. Seventy one percent of patients were classed as successful. The best results scored in patients with patellofemoral dysplasia. Failures resulted from mal-alignment, resulting in instability and progression of femoral-tibial osteoarthritis. Careful selection of patients is essential and the femoral-tibial arthritis is a relative contra-indication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.017

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicLower Extremity Biomechanics and PathologiesFrench-language works237,207