Periprosthetic Fractures: Structure and Causes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was carried out a comprehensive study of 20 patients with periprosthetic fractures who were treated in the clinic of State Institution «Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics of National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine» in 2003–2012. It is found that the number of patients with periprosthetic fractures after the primary (0.11 %) and revision (3.56 %) total hip replacement meets the standards world’s leading hospitals. Correlation between localization of periprosthetic fractures according to Vancouver classification and factors of their development by Morrey’s table has been proved. Thus, during the revision surgeries severe fractures of type B2 dominated — 63.6 %. In primary total replacement we observed fractures of the greater trochanter (type A2) and fractures around endoprosthesis stem without its instability (type B1). In periprosthetic fractures associated with the patient (due to a fall, car accident) we detected type B2 and B3 fractures and type C fractures (fractures lower endoprosthesis stem) that required an appropriate surgical treatment. Certain structure and reliable factors of periprosthetic fractures allow further development of effective measures of prevention and treatment of this disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".