Standard anatomical medullary locking (AML) versus tricalcium phosphate-coated AML femoral prostheses.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the preliminary rate and amount of bony ingrowth and calcar resorption between patients receiving either a standard anatomical medullary locking (AML) or a tricalcium phosphate (TCP)-coated AML femoral prosthesis and to compare preliminary clinical results. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. SETTING: An acute care tertiary institution. PATIENTS: Between January 1993 and March 1995, 92 patients underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). They were randomized to 2 groups of 46--a control group or a treatment group. Of the 46 subjects enrolled in each group, no significant differences were seen preoperatively with respect to age, sex, diagnosis, clinical and radiographic assessment. Seventy-one patients were followed up for 24 months. INTERVENTIONS: Insertion of either a standard AML femoral implant (control group) or a TCP-coated AML femoral implant (treatment group). OUTCOME MEASURES: The degree of hypertrophy, calcar atrophy and the number of spot welds on standard postoperative radiographs at 6, 12 and 24 months. Clinically, assessment according to the Société internationale de chirurgie orthopédique et de traumatologie (SICOT) scale and a 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. RESULTS: There were no prosthetic stem revisions in either group at the 24-month follow-up. Radiographically, bony ingrowth was not significantly different in the TCP-coated stem, by chi2 analysis of the degree of hypertrophy and number of spot welds present. Also by chi2 analysis, the degree of calcar atrophy was not significantly different between groups. The mean VAS score for pain at 24 months was 12.5 for the control and 12.1 for the treatment group. No significant differences were seen in any of the clinical categories of the SICOT Scale over the 24-month interval. CONCLUSION: The objective of TCP-coating--to increase the rate and amount of bony ingrowth while reducing the rate of calcar resorption in non-cemented THA--was not achieved by 24 months postoperatively in our study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".