The effect of kinematic conditions on the wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) in orthopaedic bearing applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is known that wear mechanisms differ between the ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) components of total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). The difference in relative contact position or 'kinematic conditions of contact' between the metal and polymer components is thought to contribute to the contrast in observed wear mechanisms. A reciprocating wear tester was used to evaluate three basic kinematic contact conditions: sliding, in which the relative contact position on the polymer remains stationary; gliding, where the contact position on the polymer reciprocates; and rolling, where the contact position on the polymer varies and the relative velocities of both components are equal. All static load tests used cast Co-Cr alloy and irradiated Chirulen UHMWPE in a 37 degrees C environment lubricated with bovine serum albumin. UHMWPE test sample wear was measured gravimetrically at intervals of 600,000 cycles. The results indicated a difference in wear factor (volume lost due to wear per unit load per unit sliding distance) between the three groups with varying relative motion. The study indicates that screening tests which evaluate wear properties of new materials for total joint replacement should reflect the different kinematic contact conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".