Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have compared the biomechanical nature of the reconstruction of the hip in conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA) and surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) in a randomised study involving 120 patients undergoing unilateral primary hip replacement. The contralateral hip was used as a control. Post-operatively, the femoral offset was significantly increased with THA (mean 5.1 mm; -2.8 to 11.6) and decreased with SRA (mean -3.3 mm; -8.9 to 8.2). Femoral offset was restored within sd 4 mm in 14 (25%) of those with THA and in 28 (57%) of the patients receiving SRA (p < 0.001). In the THA group, the leg was lengthened by a mean of 2.6 mm (-6.04 to +12.9), whereas it was shortened by a mean of 1.9 mm (-7.1 to +2.05) in the SRA group, compared with the contralateral side. Leg-length inequality was restored within sd 4 mm in 42 (86%) of the SRA and 33 (60%) of the THA patients. The radiological parameters of acetabular reconstruction were similar in both groups. Restoration of the normal proximal femoral anatomy was more precise with SRA. The enhanced stability afforded by the use of a large-diameter femoral head avoided over-lengthening of the limb or increased offset to improve soft-tissue tension as occurs sometimes in THA. In a subgroup of patients with significant pre-operative deformity, restoration of the normal hip anatomy with lower pre-operative femoral offset or significant shortening of the leg was still possible with SRA.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it