MANAGEMENT OF SEVERE UNCONTAINED TIBIAL BONY DEFECTS WITH DOUBLE METAL BLOCKS AUGMENTATION IN TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY: MINIMUM FIVE-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the mid-term clinical and radiological results in patients who were managed by double metal augmentations in proximal tibial uncontained bony defects undergoing primary or revision total knee arthroplastyMaterials and MethodsWe performed double metal augmentations in proximal tibial uncontained bony defects undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Out of total 14 patients, 8 patients (4 priamry arthroplasty, 4 revision arthroplasty), mean 61.3 (50–80) years, were available for review at least 5 years follow up. The average follow up period was 86.3(60–99) months. Range of motion, American Knee Society Score were evaluated pre- and postoperatively as a clinical values. Another clinical assessments undertaken at the final reviews, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), Oxford knee score (OKS), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), and Lower extremity activity scale (LEAS) were checked. Radiological re...
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".