MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259792596 · doi:10.1002/jor.23170

Radiostereometric analysis using clinical radiographic views: Validation measuring total hip replacement wear

2016· article· en· W2259792596 on OpenAlexafffund
Xunhua Yuan, Kimberley Lam Tin Cheung, James L. Howard, Brent A. Lanting, Matthew G. Teeter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Research® · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRadiographyRepeatabilityFemoral headImaging phantomDigital radiographyCalibrationMedicineNuclear medicineOrthodonticsComputer scienceBiomedical engineeringMathematicsRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is a stereo X-ray technique used in clinical research studies to evaluate micro-motion and wear of orthopaedic implants within bone. While highly accurate and precise, its adoption has been limited due to technical requirements such as the need for implanted marker beads and radiograph view angles determined by a calibration cage. We propose a new technique that separates the calibration procedure from the patient examination, enabling clinical radiograph views to be used for RSA measurements. The concept of a reference plate was adapted to establish the link between calibration procedure and patient examination procedure for cassette radiography, which may not be necessary for digital radiography. A hip wear phantom was used to validate this technique by comparing the error and repeatability of the novel procedure with that of conventional RSA. Femoral head penetration was measured versus the acetabular cup (head/cup) and marker beads in the acetabular liner (head/liner). Conventional RSA had lower inferior-superior average error (p = 0.03 for head/cup) while the modified RSA had lower anterior-posterior average error (p = 0.01). Average error was greater but not significantly so for the medial-lateral (p = 0.06) and 3D (p = 0.97) measurements. The head/liner method had lower average errors (p < 0.0001) for both procedures, but did not affect repeatability, which was similar between techniques. The novel procedure's average error and repeatability was therefore, similar to conventional RSA. This new technique could be applied to any joint with two clinical radiograph view angles pending further validation in subjects. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:1521-1528, 2016.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.230
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations14
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic Research®Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207