MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794097245 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.83b3.10667

Sealing effect of hydroxyapatite coating on peri-implant migration of particles

2001· article· en· W2794097245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ole Rahbek, Søren Overgaard, Martin Lind, Knud Bendix, Cody Bünger, Kjeld Søballé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoatingPeriImplantMaterials scienceComposite materialMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have studied the beneficial effects of a hydroxyapatite (HA) coating on the prevention of the migration of wear debris along the implant-bone interface. We implanted a loaded HA-coated implant and a non-coated grit-blasted titanium alloy (Ti) implant in each distal femoral condyle of eight Labrador dogs. The test implant was surrounded by a gap communicating with the joint space and allowing access of joint fluid to the implant-bone interface. We injected polyethylene (PE) particles into the right knee three weeks after surgery and repeated this weekly for the following five weeks. The left knee received sham injections. The animals were killed eight weeks after surgery. Specimens from the implant-bone interface were examined under plain and polarised light. Only a few particles were found around HA-coated implants, but around Ti implants there was a large amount of particles. HA-coated implants had approximately 35% bone ingrowth, whereas Ti implants had virtually no bone ingrowth and were surrounded by a fibrous membrane. Our findings suggest that HA coating of implants is able to inhibit peri-implant migration of PE particles by creating a seal of tightly-bonded bone on the surface of the implant.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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

Citations88
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207