MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2350509061

Treatment of periprosthetic fracture of the femur in total hip arthroplasty

2004· article· en· W2350509061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bin Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Orthopedic Journal of China · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineFemurProsthesisSurgeryFixation (population genetics)ArthroplastyFemur fractureReduction (mathematics)Orthopedic surgeryDentistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To study the treatment and prevent periprosthetic fractures of femur in total hip arthroplasty retrospectively.Methods: According to the classification of Vancouver, 8 cases of periprosthetic fractures of the femur in total hip arthroplasty in recent years were analyzed. There were three cases of type A1, three cases of type B1, one case of type B2, one case of type B3. Open reduction and fixation with wires and allograft cortical strut bone or a long-stem cemented prosthesis revision were performed respectively. Results: Through eight to eighteen months follow-up, all the fractures were united, and incoorperation occured between the strut bone and host bone. The prosthesis stem fixed well. Conclusion: Vancouver classification in the periprosthetic fracture of the femur after total hip arthroplasty is a simple and practical method. Onlay allograft cortical strut bone and fixed with wires for the treatment of periprosthetic fracture of the femur is a practical method, this method can not only promote the fracture union but also restore the bone stock.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Orthopedic Journal of China→Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty→French-language works237,207→