Comparison of two digital radiostereometric analysis methods in the determination of femoral head penetration in a total hip replacement phantom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) has been used extensively to evaluate the magnitude and direction of penetration of the femoral head into the acetabular component of a total hip replacement as a result of polyethylene wear and creep. The accuracy and precision of an RSA study depends on several factors, including the radiographic technique, the analytical software, and the positioning of the tantalum markers. This study had three sequential purposes. First, an in vitro phantom model was used to quantify the accuracy and precision of digital images versus conventional radiography in RSA measurements of penetration of the femoral head into the acetabular shell in a total hip replacement. The Umeå RSA software package was used for analysis of both the conventional films, which were digitized at a resolution of 300 DPI, and digital radiographs, which were converted from a DICOM format at a resolution of 218 DPI. Digital radiography was found to be superior. Next, two methods of RSA analysis currently in use for determining femoral head penetration into polyethylene of total joint replacements were compared. Using the phantom model, we compared the Umeå RSA system (Biomedical Innovations AB) to the RSA-CMS (RSA Clinical Measurement Solution) and in both cases used the digital radiographs. The Umeå RSA system was found to be superior. Finally, two methods of marking the position of the acetabular component with tantalum beads were compared: one in which beads were inserted into previously described towers protruding from the back of the acetabular shell and another in which beads were placed into the peripheral flange of the polyethylene liner using the Umeå RSA analysis system of the digital radiographs. The results using the two marker configurations were similar.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".