An Evidence-Based Approach to the Adoption of New Technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New orthopaedic technology is constantly being developed to help improve patient care. New technology may lead to a waste of resources or lead to harm for the patient if it is not properly evaluated before it is accepted as a standard of care. The purpose of this article is to assess how new technology can be implemented safely while maintaining an environment that allows for surgical innovation through an evidence-based approach. Although randomized controlled trials (Level-I evidence) are typically seen as the so-called gold standard with regard to treatment efficacy, randomized trials may not be the most effective form of evaluating a new technology. In many circumstances, a prospective cohort series or large registry that documents outcomes and adverse events may be more effective and practical for the evaluation of a new surgical technology.
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 | 0.366 | 0.458 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".