Comparison of the Genesis II total knee replacement with oxidised zirconium and cobalt-chromium femoral components in the same patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite many claims of good wear properties following total knee replacement (TKR) with an oxidised zirconium (OxZr) femoral component, there are conflicting clinical results. We hypothesised that there would be no difference in either the mid-term clinical and radiological outcomes or the characteristics of the polyethylene wear particles (weight, size and shape) in patients using an OxZr or cobalt-chrome (CoCr) femoral component. In all 331 patients underwent bilateral TKR, receiving an OxZr femoral component in one knee and a CoCr femoral component in the other. The mean follow-up was 7.5 years (6 to 8). Following aspiration, polyethylene wear particles were analysed using thermogravimetric methods and scanning electron microscopy. At the most recent follow-up, the mean Knee Society score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, range of movement and satisfaction score were not significantly different in the two groups. The mean weight, size, aspect ratio and roundness of the aspirated wear particles were similar for each femoral component. Survivorship of the femoral, tibial and patellar components was 100% in both groups. In the absence of evidence of an advantage in the medium term we cannot justify the additional expense of an OxZr femoral component.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".