Concordance between laboratories in metal ion testing in patients with metal-on-metal hip implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Testing of whole blood or serum metal ion levels has become an important part of assessing and monitoring the performance of metal-on-metal bearings, both in hip resurfacing arthroplasty and in total hip replacement. The aim of this study was to determine the concordance between 2 laboratories testing cobalt and chromium ion levels in patients with metal-on-metal bearings. METHODS: Serum and whole blood samples from patients who had undergone metal-on-metal resurfacing or large-diameter total hip arthroplasty were tested for cobalt and chromium ions in laboratory A (a recognized laboratory) and laboratory B (tasked with testing clinical specimens). Laboratory A performed cobalt and chromium testing on whole blood, and laboratory B performed cobalt testing on whole blood and chromium testing on serum. RESULTS: Samples from 104 patients were tested. Laboratory B reported lower whole blood cobalt levels than laboratory A. Furthermore, laboratory A reported that all patients had elevated whole blood cobalt ion levels compared to the normal reference values for the laboratory, whereas laboratory B reported that 46 patients (44.2%) had whole blood cobalt ion levels within the normal reference range for the laboratory. CONCLUSION: This comparative study highlights the importance of using a single laboratory for metal ion testing, as values generated from different laboratories may not be directly comparable. With recent literature suggesting that whole blood cobalt levels as low as 1 ppb may be a predictor of adverse reactions to metal debris, accurate clinical measurement needs to be increasingly exact.
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 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".