Strain pattern following surface replacement of the hip
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim is to compare the strain pattern in intact and resurfaced femurs using validated third-generation composite femurs and rosette strain gauges. The rosette strain gauges were applied to an intact and a resurfaced third-generation composite femur at three sites: the narrowest part of the lateral surface of the neck, the narrowest part of the medial surface of the neck, and the medial surface at the level of the lesser trochanter. The maximum and minimum principal strains were calculated at axial loads of 600, 800, and 1000 N. Further tests were carried out with an additional abductor load. The maximum principal strains in the resurfaced femur were approximately 50 per cent higher in the lateral surface of the neck and about 25 per cent higher in the lesser trochanteric region than in the intact femur. Inclusion of the abductor force decreased the strains in both the intact and the resurfaced femurs, particularly at the lateral surface of the femoral neck. Increased strain at the lateral surface of the femoral neck following hip resurfacing could be a cause of neck fracture, particularly if there are other predisposing factors such as notching of the femoral neck and/or abductor dysfunction. Meticulous repair of the abductors is warranted if a lateral approach is used.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".