MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121554961 · doi:10.1080/11762320701523679

Simple Mathematical and Computational Wear Model for Ultra‐High‐Molecular‐Weight Polyethylene Total Hip Replacements

2007· article· en· W2121554961 on OpenAlexaff
K. H. S. Chan, T R A Pearce, Robert W. Blake, L.C. Chow, Shuilin Wu, F.S.L. Wong, Jian Li

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Bionics and Biomechanics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)PolyethyleneUltra-high-molecular-weight polyethyleneMaterials scienceComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringEngineering drawingMechanical engineeringComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultra‐high‐molecular‐weight polyethylene is an important constituent of hip implants. Surgical revisions are required because of implant loosening and osteolysis (destruction or resorption of bone tissue). We develop a mathematical and a computational model to determine implant life (defined as the time when 20% of the implants operating at a given wear rate is revised) based on wear rates and apply them to the data of Sochart (Clin Orthop Relat Res, 363:135–50, 1999). No significant difference was found between mathematical and computational model predictions (14.8 and 14.7 years, respectively) from the actual value of 15.0 ± 3.9 years ( ± 2SE; P > 0.05). We find that an increase in cross‐linking does not decrease implant life greatly. However, a large decrease in implant life occurs with an increase in surface roughness, cycles per year and body weight or a decrease in contact stress and femoral head radius.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Bionics and BiomechanicsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207