Stemless shoulder replacement: a new concept for shoulder arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".