A Comparison of Clinical Results of Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty and 28 mm Metal on Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomised Trial with 3–6 Years Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two hundred and nine hips were randomised to receive either a 28 mm total hip athroplasty (THA, 100 hips) or hybrid hip resurfacing (HR, 109 hips). At 1 and 2 years post-operatively, patients with HR achieved statistically significantly better WOMAC functional scores. However, differences in scores were of slight clinical relevance with a difference of 2.2/100 and 3.3/100, at 1 and 2 years respectively (p=0.007). After an average follow-up of 56 months (range 36-72) there were similar re-operation rates 7/100 THA and 6/109 HR (p=0.655) and revision rates 2/100 THA and 4/109 HR (p=0.470). However, the types of complications were different. Higher early aseptic loosening rate was found in HR and long-term survival analysis of both patient cohorts is necessary to determine whether the potential bone preservation advantage offers by HR will overcome its earlier higher failure rate.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".