MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258931246 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.90b4.19718

The anatomically difficult primary total hip replacement

2008· article· en· W2258931246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leela Biant, Warwick Bruce, Joseph B. Assini, Peter Walker, William R. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal hip replacementPrimary (astronomy)MedicineComputer scienceSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This prospective study presents the ten-year (5 to 16) clinical and radiological results of 55 primary total hip replacements (THR) using a cementless modular femoral component (S-ROM). All patients had a significant anatomical abnormality which rendered the primary THR difficult. The mean Harris hip score was 36 (12 to 72) pre-operatively, 83 (44 to 100) at five years, and 85 (45 to 99) at ten years. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and short-form (SF)-12 scores were recorded from the year 2000. The mean SF-12 score at five years after surgery was 45.24 (22.74 to 56.58) for the physical component and 54.14 (29.20 to 66.61) for the mental component. By ten years the SF-12 scores were 42.86 (21.59 to 58.95) and 51.03 (33.78 to 61.40), respectively. The mean WOMAC score at five years post-operatively was 25 (0 to 59), and at ten years was 27 (2 to 70). No femoral components were radiologically loose, although five had osteolysis in Gruen zone 1, three had osteolysis in zone 7, and two showed osteolysis in both zones 1 and 7. No osteolysis was observed around or distal to the prosthetic sleeve. No femoral components were revised, although three hips underwent an acetabular revision and two required a liner exchange. At a mean of ten years' follow-up the S-ROM femoral component implanted for an anatomically difficult primary THR has excellent clinical and radiological 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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