MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971687071 · doi:10.1302/2058-5241.4.180045

Dual mobility total hip arthroplasty: should everyone get one?

2019· review· en· W2971687071 on OpenAlex
William G. Blakeney, Jean-Alain Epinette, Pascal‐André Vendittoli

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEFORT Open Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDual (grammatical number)Total hip arthroplastyArthroplastyHip arthroplastyMedicineSurgeryArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Hip instability following total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a major challenge and is one of the main causes of revision surgery. Dual mobility (DM) implants have been introduced to try to overcome this problem. The DM design consists of a small femoral head captive and mobile within a polyethylene liner. Numerous studies have shown that DM implants reduce the rate of dislocation compared to fixed-bearing inserts. Early designs for DM implants had problems with wear and intra-prosthetic dislocations, so their use was restricted to limited indications. The results of the latest generation of DM prostheses demonstrate that these problems have been overcome. Given the results of these studies presented in this review, surgeons may now consider DM THA for a wider patient selection. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4:541-547. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180045

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.010

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.196 · 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