Fratture femorali periprotesiche nella protesi totale d’anca
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Riassunto Le fratture periprotesiche rappresentano una frequente complicanza dell’artroprotesi totale d’anca. Possono verificarsi durante o dopo l’intervento e associarsi o meno alla mobilizzazione della protesi. Vi e un’ampia variabilita di quadri clinici, correlati anche alla qualita dell’osso periprotesico. Sono state proposte molteplici classificazioni allo scopo di aiutare il chirurgo nella fase decisionale. La piu usata e quella di Vancouver per le fratture postoperatorie. La prima regola da seguire e la prevenzione della frattura. Pertanto occorre prendere in considerazione i vari fattori di rischio, mettendo in atto un’accurata pianificazione preoperatoria, scegliendo l’esposizione piu adeguata, impiegando la tecnica chirurgica piu prudente. E inoltre necessario seguire una tattica di revisione precoce, onde evitare una perdita di sostanza ossea maggiore. Esistono molte possibilita di trattamento, compresi un approccio conservativo, la fissazione interna e la revisione della protesi. Spesso si assodano innesti omologhi per riparare i difetti ossei e rinforzare l’osso osteoporotico. Tuttavia, le complicanze sono numerose e l’incidenza degli esiti sfavorevoli e elevata.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".