MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301835898 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.87b8.16011

Results of a hydroxyapatite-coated (Furlong) total hip replacement

2005· article· en· W2301835898 on OpenAlexaff
Ashwin Shetty, R. Douglas Slack, A Tindall, Kyle James, C. Rand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticRadiodensityMedicineRadiographyTotal hip replacementSurgeryDentistrySurvival analysisSurvival rateOrthodonticsArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe the survival of 134 consecutive JRI Furlong hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented total hip replacements. The mean follow-up was for 14.2 years (13 to 15). Patients were assessed clinically, using the Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score. Radiographs were evaluated using Gruen zones for the stem and DeLee and Charnley zones for the cup. Signs of subsidence, radiolucent lines, endosteal bone formation (spot welds) and pedestal formation were used to assess fixation and stability of the stem according to Engh's criteria. Cup angle, migration and radiolucency were used to assess loosening of the cup. The criteria for failure were revision, or impending revision because of pain or loosening. Survival analysis was performed using a life table and the Kaplan-Meier curve. The mean total Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score was 7.4 pre-operatively and 15.9 at follow-up. During the study period 22 patients died and six were lost to follow-up. None of the cups was revised. One stem was revised for a periprosthetic fracture following a fall but none was revised for loosening, giving a 99% survival at 13 years. Our findings suggest that the long-term results of these hydroxyapatite-coated prostheses are more than satisfactory.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.618
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations86
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207