MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344090915 · doi:10.1002/jbm.b.33693

Failure mechanisms in CoCrMo modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty

2016· article· en· W2344090915 on OpenAlexaff
Qiong Wang, Michael Parry, Bassam A. Masri, Clivе P. Duncan, Rizhi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied Biomaterials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal hip arthroplastyModular designMaterials scienceCatastrophic failureStress corrosion crackingMechanical failureCrackingFailure mechanismTotal hip replacementCorrosionForensic engineeringComposite materialMedicineSurgeryEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this retrieval study, we reported the failure mechanisms of the CoCrMo-based hip implants. Systematic analyses on the clinically failed modular femoral stems from Revitan™ revision prostheses revealed a multistep fracture process. Multiple microcracks were first developed under the combined action of pitting corrosion and dynamic tensile stress on the lateral side of the CoCrMo connection taper. These microcracks then served as the initiation sites of further corrosion fatigue cracking leading to the final catastrophic failure. This crack initiation process has not been previously reported on retrieved CoCrMo components and our findings provide valuable information on the clinical performance of such implants, as well as the material selection and structural designs of future modular stems. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 105B: 1525-1535, 2017.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B Applied BiomaterialsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207