MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069195487 · doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0540-9

2008 John Charnley Award: Metal Ion Levels After Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Trial

2008· article· en· W2069195487 on OpenAlexaff
Charles A. Engh, Steven J. MacDonald, Supatra Sritulanondha, Abigail E Thompson, Douglas D.R. Naudie

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTitaniumChromiumBearing surfaceMetalTotal hip arthroplastyBearing (navigation)SurgeryMetallurgyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Metal-on-metal bearing total hip arthroplasty is performed more commonly than in the past. There may be manufacturing differences such as clearance, roughness, metallurgy, and head size that affect performance. In a prospective, randomized trial, we compared 2-year postoperative ion levels for a 28-mm metal-on-polyethylene bearing with 28-mm and 36-mm metal-on-metal bearings. We measured serum, erythrocyte, and urine ion levels. We observed no difference in the ion levels for the 28-mm and 36-mm metal-on-metal bearings. The ion levels in these patients were lower than reported for most other metal-on-metal bearings. Although both erythrocyte and serum cobalt increased, erythrocyte chromium and erythrocyte titanium did not increase despite a four- to sixfold serum chromium and a three- to fourfold serum titanium increase. This may represent a threshold level for serum chromium and serum titanium below which erythrocytes are not affected. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study. See the 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations98
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207