Randomised controlled trial comparing early migration of two collarless polished cemented stems using radiostereometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This was a safety study where the hypothesis was that the newer-design CPCS femoral stem would demonstrate similar early clinical results and micromovement to the well-established Exeter stem. Both are collarless, tapered, polished cemented stems, the only difference being a slight lateral to medial taper with the CPCS stem. A total of 34 patients were enrolled in a single-blinded randomised controlled trial in which 17 patients received a dedicated radiostereometric CPCS stem and 17 a radiostereometric Exeter stem. No difference was found in any of the outcome measures pre-operatively or post-operatively between groups. At two years, the mean subsidence for the CPCS stem was nearly half that seen for the Exeter stem (0.77 mm (-0.943 to 1.77) and 1.25 mm (0.719 to 1.625), respectively; p = 0.032). In contrast, the mean internal rotation of the CPCS stem was approximately twice that of the Exeter (1.61 degrees (-1.07 degrees to 4.33 degrees ) and 0.59 degrees (0.97 degrees to 1.64 degrees ), respectively; p = 0.048). Other migration patterns were not significantly different between the stems. The subtle differences in designs may explain the different patterns of migration. Comparable migration with the Exeter stem suggests that the CPCS design will perform well in the long term.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".