The Effect of Adjuvant Calcium Phosphate Coating on a Porous-Coated Femoral Stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial was done to determine if the addition of hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate to the porous coating of a cementless femoral component would result in improved clinical and radiographic outcomes. Patients were randomized to receive identical porous-coated stems with (n = 159 hips) or without (n = 159 hips) hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate coating. At 2 to 5 years followup (mean, 37 months), no implants were revised for aseptic loosening. There was no difference in clinical function between the two groups with respect to the Harris hip score or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores. Bony ingrowth occurred frequently in both groups with 99% of the hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate group and 98% of the control group showing radiographic evidence of osseointegration. Implants coated with hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate had significantly fewer radiolucencies adjacent to the porous coating, indicative of improved osseointegration. Radiolucencies were present in Gruen Zones 1, 7, 8, or 14 in 25% of the control group and in 7% of the hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate group. This improved osseointegration could serve as an added barrier to particulate debris migration and increase the long-term survivorship of the implant.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".