MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2590986690 · doi:10.1097/bco.0000000000000489

Stemless shoulder replacement: a new concept for shoulder arthritis

2017· article· en· W2590986690 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Orthopaedic Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicShoulder Injury and Treatment
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArthroplastyImplantPeriprostheticSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stemless shoulder arthroplasty implants allow a surgeon to more accurately recreate a patient’s normal anatomy because the implant is contained solely within the proximal humeral metaphysis. As well, this has the potential to avoid humeral stem-related complications, such as intraoperative fracture, periprosthetic fracture, and difficulties with revisions and stem extraction. Canal sparing shoulder arthroplasty implants have been used since 2004, and currently six manufacturers have designs available. Short-term to mid-term results are promising, with low rates of loosening and revision, similar to stemmed implants. However, long-term outcomes are not yet available. Stemless reverse shoulder arthroplasty offers the same potential benefits as anatomic stemless designs. Some implants are a convertible design that allows conversion from an anatomic to a reverse humeral component while leaving the metaphyseal implant in place. Short-term to mid-term outcomes are available only for one implant and are promising. Long-term outcomes of stemless reverse shoulder implants are not known.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.329 · 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