MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168857286 · doi:10.1093/jat/bks090

Evaluation of the Method for Analyzing Chromium, Cobalt and Titanium Ion Levels in the Blood Following Hip Replacement with a Metal-on-Metal Prosthesis

2012· article· en· W2168857286 on OpenAlexaff
Janie Barry, Martin Lavigne, Pascal‐André Vendittoli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Toxicology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromiumRepeatabilityCobaltTitaniumChemistryInductively coupled plasma mass spectrometryMetalDetection limitAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Mass spectrometryChromatographyInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-resolution inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (HR-ICP-MS) can be used to measure metal ion levels in whole blood, although the accuracy and repeatability of this method is not yet known in the clinical setting. In this study, chromium, cobalt and titanium ion levels were measured in three whole blood samples, each collected at the same moment from 101 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with a metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing. The first sample (purge sample) had direct contact with the metal needle used during insertion of the catheter, whereas the second sample (reference sample) and the third sample (reserve sample) did not. The absolute difference between reference samples and reserve samples was greater than the limit of quantification of the HR-ICP-MS device for all three ions (0.84 versus 0.35 µg/L for chromium, 0.74 versus 0.07 for cobalt, and 0.88 versus 0.70 µg/L for titanium), although the levels were very small in most cases, they exceeded the clinical significant threshold in 19 to 31% of the cases. No clinically significant difference was observed between reference samples and purge samples. Therefore, HR-ICP-MS is a clinically acceptable method to evaluate metal ion levels in blood following hip replacement with an MoM prosthesis, and it is not necessary to discard the purge sample to obtain repeatable results.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical ToxicologySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207