PERIPROSTHETIC FRACTURES AFTER JOINT REPLACEMENT: A UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periprosthetic fracture associated with joint replacement is a common reason for revision arthroplasty and is increasing. Establishing universal principles of management is essential for good outcomes and a classification system that not only classifies, but offers these principles, is critical to achieve this. The Vancouver Classification System (VCS) for periprosthetic fractures involving total hip arthroplasty is validated across North America and Europe. It does not, however, consider other periprosthetic fractures in different joints. The Unified Classification System (UCS) was developed to incorporate the classification and treatment principles of all periprosthetic fractures in any anatomic location. The system is based on the simple mnemonic “ABCDEF” which corresponds to fractures characterized by the following anatomic descriptors: 1) apophyseal; 2) bed of the implant; 3) clear of the implant; 4) dividing the bone between two arthroplasties; 5) each of two bones supporting one arthroplasty; 6) facing and articulating with an implant. Initial validation for the UCS shows substantial and near-perfect inter and intra-observer agreement. Given this performance, it has the potential to evolve into the gold standard classification system for periprosthetic fractures in any joint that they occur.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".