MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253103140 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.91b6.21417

The continued value of clinical and radiological surveillance

2009· article· en· W2253103140 on OpenAlexaff
B. Ollivere, C. Darrah, R. C. Brankin, S. T. Mc Donnell, N. P. Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsNorfolk General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiological weaponConfidence intervalSurgerySurvivorship curveTotal hip replacementRadiographyPredictive valueInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the follow-up at 12 years of the use of the Elite Plus total hip replacement (THR). We have previously reported the results at a mean of 6.4 years. Of the 217 patients (234 THRs), 83 had died and nine had been lost to follow-up. The patients were reviewed radiologically and clinically using the Oxford hip score. Of the 234 THRs, 19 (8.1%) had required a revision by the final follow-up in all but one for aseptic loosening. Survivorship analysis for revision showed a survival of 93.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89.2 to 96.5) at ten years, and of 88.0% (95% CI 81.8 to 92.3) at 12 years. At the final follow-up survival analysis showed that 37% (95% CI 37.3 to 44.7) of the prostheses had either failed radiologically or had been revised. Patients with a radiologically loose femoral component had a significantly poorer Oxford hip score than those with a well-fixed component (p = 0.03). Radiological loosening at 6.4 years was predictive of failure at 12 years. Medium-term radiographs and clinical scores should be included in the surveillance of THR to give an early indication of the performance of specific implants.

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)0.019
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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