MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089044479 · doi:10.1115/1.2133766

Cortical Bone Viscoelasticity and Fixation Strength of Press-Fit Femoral Stems: An In-Vitro Model

2005· article· en· W2089044479 on OpenAlexaff
Timothy L. Norman, E. Ackerman, TL Smith, Thomas A. Gruen, Adolph J. Yates, John Blaha, Vincent L. Kish

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomechanical Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViscoelasticityFixation (population genetics)Biomedical engineeringCadaverInitial stabilityCortical boneBiomechanicsMaterials scienceOrthodonticsAnatomyChemistryMedicineSurgeryImplantComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cementless total hip femoral components rely on press-fit for initial stability and bone healing and remodeling for secondary fixation. However, the determinants of satisfactory press-fit are not well understood. In previous studies, human cortical bone loaded circumferentially to simulate press-fit exhibited viscoelastic, or time dependent, behavior. The effect of bone viscoelastic behavior on the initial stability of press-fit stems is not known. Therefore, in the current study, push-out loads of cylindrical stems press-fit into reamed cadaver diaphyseal femoral specimens were measured immediately after assembly and 24 h with stem-bone diametral interference and stem surface treatment as independent variables. It was hypothesized that stem-bone interference would result in a viscoelastic response of bone that would decrease push-out load thereby impairing initial press-fit stability. Results showed that push-out load significantly decreased over a 24 h period due to bone viscoelasticity. It was also found that high and low push-out loads occurred at relatively small amounts of stem-bone interference, but a relationship between stem-bone interference and push-out load could not be determined due to variability among specimens. On the basis of this model, it was concluded that press-fit fixation can occur at relatively low levels of diametral interference and that stem-bone interference elicits viscoelastic response that reduces stem stability over time. From a clinical perspective, these results suggest that there could be large variations in initial press-fit fixation among patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomechanical EngineeringSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207