The effect of partial vs. full hydroxyapatite coating on periprosthetic bone quality around the canine madreporic femoral stem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While hydroxyapatite coatings have been shown to enhance osseointegration of metal prostheses, the optimal extent of the coating over the femoral stem component remains unclear. In this study, we investigated the effect of the application of hydroxyapatite to the proximal half of the femoral stem vs. full hydroxyapatite coating on the madreporic-surfaced femoral stems in a canine model over time. Total hip arthroplasties were performed on 22 dogs. Fifteen had half-HA coated stems, and seven had fully HA coated stems. The dogs were followed for 3 weeks, 3 months, or 1 year postoperatively. Micromotion near the femoral component was assessed at three levels along the medial aspect of the stems. Percent bone apposition, trabecular strut width, connectivity index, and cortical porosity measurements were performed at five levels and in four quadrants about the femoral stems. Micromotion was greater adjacent to the half-coated stems at 3 weeks postoperatively only. There was a trend to decreased micromotion from proximal to distal in both stem types. Both designs fixed proximally and tended to load share laterally more than in the other three quadrants. Fully HA coated stems induced greater percent bone apposition, wider trabecular struts, and more connectivity compared to half-HA coated stems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".