MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141578739 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.92b4.22897

Total hip replacement in patients with multiple epiphyseal dysplasia with a mean follow-up of 15 years and survival analysis

2010· article· en· W2141578739 on OpenAlexaff
Ratna Ramaswamy, Yona Kosashvili, Hugh U. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsWellesley InstituteOrthopaedic Innovation Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalRadiological weaponSurgeryDysplasiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The hip joint is commonly involved in multiple epiphyseal dysplasia and patients may require total hip replacement before the age of 30 years. We retrospectively reviewed nine patients (16 hips) from four families. The diagnosis of multiple epiphyseal dysplasia was based on a family history, genetic counselling, clinical features and radiological findings. The mean age at surgery was 32 years (17 to 63), with a mean follow-up of 15.9 years (5.5 to 24). Of the 16 hips, ten required revision at a mean of 12.5 years (5 to 15) consisting of complete revision of the acetabular component in three hips and isolated exchange of the liner in seven. No femoral component has loosened or required revision during the period of follow-up. With revision for any reason, the 15-year survival was only 11.4% (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 21.4). However, when considering revision of the acetabular shell in isolation the survival at ten years was 93.7% (95% confidence interval 87.7 to 99.7), reducing to 76.7% (95% confidence interval 87.7 to 98.7) at 15 and 20 years, respectively.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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