Bone Remodeling is Different in Metaphyseal and Diaphyseal-fit Uncemented Hip Stems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Femoral component stability in uncemented total hip arthroplasties depends on periprosthetic bone remodeling. Stem design is an important factor influencing bone remodeling, however the design that promotes the most bone remodeling is unclear. We examined metaphyseal and diaphyseal-fit stems to determine the effect of stem design on bone remodeling and stability. Twenty-three patients who had total hip arthroplasties (28 hips) with metaphyseal-fit stems were matched with 27 patients (32 hips) who had uncemented total hip arthroplasties with diaphyseal-fit stems. We assessed preoperative radiographs for canal fill, canal shape, and bone quality. We then assessed postoperative radiographs for periprosthetic bone remodeling including spot welds, cortical hypertrophy, and pedestal formation. Patients were examined clinically using a modified Harris hip score. Patients with metaphyseal stems had increased cortical hypertrophy 1 year postoperatively. However, there was no functional difference 2 years postoperatively. Both stem designs resulted in bone remodeling by 2 years postoperatively with similar clinical results.
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) | 0.001 | 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".