MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long-Term Function After Charnley Total Hip Arthroplasty

2003· article· en· W268300862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jay D. Keener, John J. Callaghan, Devon D. Goetz, DOUGLAS R. PEDERSON, Patrick M. Sullivan, Richard C. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsMedicineWOMACOsteoarthritisArthroplastyOrthopedic surgeryCohortHarris Hip ScoreHip surgerySurgeryPhysical therapyNormativeCohort studyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to report the functional results and mortality rates of a consecutive series of patients younger than 50 years after Charnley total hip arthroplasty. The original group of 69 patients (93 hips) was followed up until death or a minimum of 25 years after surgery. Of the original 93 hips, 29 had been revised at some point. Functional outcomes included the Short Form-36, Western Ontario and McMaster University University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 6-minute walk distance, Noyes activity scale, and Harris hip scores and included followup in 42 of 43 living patients. The functional outcome of patients was good, with comparable Short Form-36 scores compared with normative values of healthy age-matched subjects. The 6-minute walk distances and WOMAC scores were slightly lower than healthy normatives but were thought to be influenced by medical comorbidities. Although comorbid medical and musculoskeletal conditions significantly hindered most measures of function, revision surgery or radiographic loosening of components had no significant influence on function. The mortality rates of this cohort of patients were similar to normative values at both 10 and 25 years after surgery.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207