MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2538222212

72 – A SURVEY ON THE INCIDENCE OF PSEUDOTUMOURS WITH MOM HIP RESURFACINGS IN CANADIAN ACADEMIC CENTRES

2011· article· en· W2538222212 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul E. Beaulé, Frank Campbell Smith, James Powell, John Antoniou, Robert B. Bourne, Martin Lavigne, Étienne L. Belzile, Emil H. Schemitsch, Donald S. Garbuz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHip resurfacingMedicineIncidence (geometry)DemographicsRadiographySurgerySoft tissueComplicationImplantDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Recently, there has been concern raised on the occurrence of pseudotumors after metal on metal hip resurfacing. A pseudotumor is defined as a local soft tissue mass associated with localized bony and/or tissue (muscle) destruction. The primary purpose of this study is to determine the incidence of this complication in several high volume Canadian academic centres. Method: Nine of the 11 Canadian academic centres who perform metal on metal hip resurfacings were surveyed. The number of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasties performed at each centre was first determined, as were the number of those who have presented with a pseudotumour, and subsequently gone on to revision surgery. The basic demographics of the group were recorded, as were the radiographic and implant design variables for those cases presenting with a pseudotumour. Results: A sample of 3,400 hip resurfacing arthroplasties performed between 2002 and December 2008 were surveyed. Demographics were tabulated for a sub-sample of these patients. 76% were male, the mean length of follow-up was 3.02 years, mean BMI was 28.65, and mean age was 52.10 years. Three of 3,400 cases presented with a pseudotumour, an incidence of .09%. Conclusion: Although pseudotumors remain a concern after metal on metal hip resurfacing, the incidence at short to mid term follow-up is very low in this multi-centre academic survey. This information is significantly lower than what other groups have recently reported. Continued close monitoring is required in order to determine what clinical factors are at play.

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)0.003
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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty→French-language works237,207→