MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140764670 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.91b11.22292

An algorithm for the surgical treatment of periprosthetic fractures of the femur around a well-fixed femoral component

2009· article· en· W2140764670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristoff Corten, Filip Vanrykel, Johan Bellemans, P. Reynders Frederix, J.‐P. Simon, Paul Broos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineAlgorithmFixation (population genetics)SurgeryReduction (mathematics)FemurFemoral fractureArthroplastyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of plate-and-cable constructs to treat periprosthetic fractures around a well-fixed femoral component in total hip replacements has been reported to have high rates of failure. Our aim was to evaluate the results of a surgical treatment algorithm to use these lateral constructs reliably in Vancouver type-B1 and type-C fractures. The joint was dislocated and the stability of the femoral component was meticulously evaluated in 45 type-B1 fractures. This led to the identification of nine (20%) unstable components. The fracture was considered to be suitable for single plate-and-cable fixation by a direct reduction technique if the integrity of the medial cortex could be restored. Union was achieved in 29 of 30 fractures (97%) at a mean of 6.4 months (3 to 30) in 29 type-B1 and five type-C fractures. Three patients developed an infection and one construct failed. Using this algorithm plate-and-cable constructs can be used safely, but indirect reduction with minimal soft-tissue damage could lead to shorter times to union and lower rates of complications.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations140
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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