[Analiza postępowania w złamaniach okołoprotezowych kości udowej po endoprotezoplastyce stawu biodrowego].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fracture around the femoral shaft after hip arthroplasty is rarely trauma. On the other hand, the surgical supply of this fracture is a very demanding process, because we deal with older, often patients with risk factors, with poor bone quality and a broken bone canal filled with a prosthesis stem. AIM: The aim of the study is to analyze the frequency of these fractures over the years 2005-2011 and examples of surgical solutions (plate fixation, revision stems). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the discussed period, 12 patients were treated for periprosthetic fracture of the femur. The analysis excluded patients with intraoperative fractures performed during primary arthroplasty. The analysis involved the mechanism of injury, the primary cause of the prosthesis, the fracture morphology (according to Vancouver classification). RESULTS: 11 patients were treated surgically and 1 conservatively. In 10 cases, a good or very good treatment result was obtained. In 2 patients, complications occurred and surgical treatment was necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic fractures are characterized by a high percentage of failures (18%) requiring reoperation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".