MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083778742 · doi:10.1097/bto.0b013e3181d1e4ae

Femoral Head Vascularity. Impact and Implications for Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty

2010· article· en· W2083778742 on OpenAlexaff
Craig A. White, Paul E. Beaulé

Bibliographic record

VenueTechniques in Orthopaedics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemoral headVascularityMedicineHip resurfacingBlood supplySurgeryFemoral neckArthroplastyBlood flowRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary: The blood supply to the resurfaced femoral head has been implicated in the early failure of implants. The extraosseous supply to the femoral head is threatened both during the approach and the preparation of the femoral head to receive an implant. The presence or degree of intraosseous supply is under debate as is its ability to compensate for any damage of the supply. Evidence of a decrease in the femoral head blood flow has been demonstrated due to the approach, positioning of the limb, and after preparation of the femoral head for hip resurfacing. Histologic studies have shown evidence of osteonecrosis around failed implants, and identified as a cause of femoral neck fracture after hip resurfacing. It is with this in mind that a thorough understanding of the femoral blood flow anatomy and it implications for long-term success is needed to achieve the best results in resurfacing of the arthritic femoral head. This article describes the key considerations of the vascularity of the arthritic femoral head undergoing resurfacing arthoplasty and the latest research evidence of its influence on resurfacing outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.320 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechniques in OrthopaedicsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207