MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121533692 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.89b4.18054

Chromium and cobalt ion release following the Durom high carbon content, forged metal-on-metal surface replacement of the hip

2007· review· en· W2121533692 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal‐André Vendittoli, Sophie Mottard, Alain Roy, C. Dupont, Martin Lavigne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCobaltChromiumMetalMetal ions in aqueous solutionMaterials scienceIonCarbon fibersAlloyMetallurgyChemistryNuclear chemistryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the concentrations of chromium and cobalt ions in blood after metal-on-metal surface replacement arthroplasty using a wrought-forged, high carbon content chromium-cobalt alloy implant in 64 patients. At one year, mean whole blood ion levels were 1.61 microg/L (0.4 to 5.5) for chromium and 0.67 microg/L (0.23 to 2.09) for cobalt. The pre-operative ion levels, component size, female gender and the inclination of the acetabular component were inversely proportional to the values of chromium and/or cobalt ions at one year postoperatively. Other factors, such as age and level of activity, did not correlate with the levels of metal ions. We found that the levels of the ions in the serum were 1.39 and 1.37 times higher for chromium and cobalt respectively than those in the whole blood. The levels of metal ions obtained may be specific to the hip resurfacing implant and reflect its manufacturing process.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations204
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207