Biaxial flexural modulus of antibiotic‐impregnated orthopedic bone cement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previously reported antibiotic-impregnated cement strengths have been based on uniaxial and fatigue testing methodologies. These methods may not provide an accurate characterization of bone cement's true load-bearing capacity in total joint replacement (TJR). The present study utilized biaxial testing to report on the properties of antibiotic-impregnated cement. Test groups included: PMMA mixed with Vancomycin, Gentamicin, Tobramycin, or no antibiotic (control). In comparison to the control group, PMMA samples mixed with powdered gentamicin resulted in an increase in the mean elastic modulus by 6.50% versus a drop noted with powdered vancomycin and tobramycin by 2.65 and 1.37% respectively. The mean elastic modulus in samples containing liquid gentamicin dropped by 11.6%. This study supports the continued use of powdered antibiotics when clinically indicated, but suggest caution in the use of liquid gentamicin in TJR.
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) | 0.002 | 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".