Bibliographic record
Abstract
A conceptually new acetabular design is currently available when performing a total hip arthroplasty – the dual mobility socket. Essentially this is a press-fit acetabular component with a polished surface that articulates with a large polyethylene head with a 28 mm ball inserted into that polyethylene in a similar fashion to a bipolar design. Proponents of this design advocate its use to reduce the risk of dislocation, and it is being offered as an alternative to constrained liners and also as a potential prophylactic application in revision and high risk patients. The concerns regarding this construct include: 1.WearA large polyethylene head articulating against a polished metal surface will have much greater wear than a conventional metal against poly bearing. Hip simulator data has shown this previously. To demonstrate a reduction in wear, one must compare unlike polyethylenes, or extremes in component positioning. 2.Clinical dataAt present there are only 2 published reports on this implant, both from the same centre. These are both short-term follow up reports (min 2 year follow up). There are no control groups with other implants in these same “at risk” patients. There is no registry data to date on this implant. 3.Patient PopulationA difficult question to answer is which patient is at risk for dislocation and if one was going to apply this new technology, which patient would receive it. In the original published series, 26% of patients undergoing THA had this implant. Does the increased risk of wear and osteolysis warrant the use of this implant in a primary setting? In a revision setting, the implant available in North America has no provision for any screw fixation – is that practical in these challenging cases? There are many options available to both manage and to prevent hip instability. Any new implant must show equivalence to current devices on the many fronts of wear, fixation, midterm results, complications and costs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.026 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".