MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2306992161 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010472

<i>Cu</i> rved versus <i>S</i> traight Stem Uncemented <i>T</i> otal Hip Arthroplasty <i>O</i> steoarthritis <i>M</i> ulticenter trial (CUSTOM): design of a prospective blinded randomised controlled multicentre trial

2016· article· en· W2306992161 on OpenAlexaff
Loes W A H van Beers, Jakob van Oldenrijk, Vanessa A. Scholtes, Carel H. Geerdink, Bob B A M Niers, Wouter C Runne, Mohit Bhandari, Rudolf W. Poolman

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialOsteoarthritisProsthesisArthroplastyHarris Hip ScoreRandomized controlled trialSurgeryHelsinki declarationPopulationInstitutional review boardProspective cohort studyPhysical therapyRehabilitationInformed consentInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Answering the demands of an increasingly young and active patient population, recent developments in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have shifted towards minimising tissue damage. The Collum Femoris Preserving (CFP) stem was developed to preserve the trochanteric region of the femur, which potentially preserves the insertion of the gluteus musculature. This might accelerate early postoperative rehabilitation and improve functional outcome. Currently the functional results of the CFP stem have not been compared with conventional straight stems in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). The primary purpose of this trial is to compare the functional result of CFP stem THA with conventional uncemented straight stem THA, measured by the Dutch Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) at 3-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective blinded multicentre RCT will be performed. We aim to recruit 150 patients. The patients will be randomly allocated to a THA with a straight or a curved stem. All patients, research assistants, clinical assessors and investigators will be blinded for the type of prosthesis for 5 years. Clinical assessments and roentgenograms will be taken preoperative, at 6 weeks after surgery, at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years after surgery. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) will be obtained at the same follow-up moments. In addition, the PROMs will also be sent to the patients at 3 and 6 months after surgery. The HOOS at 3-month follow-up will be our primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. A local ethics committee has approved this trial. Written informed consent will be obtained from all participating patients. All serious adverse events will be reported to the ethics committee. RESULTS: Results will be submitted for publication to an orthopaedics related journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR1560.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→