Comparison of Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed with and without Cement: A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total hip arthroplasty has been associated with excellent implant survival rates, but debate remains concerning the best fixation method for the components. A randomized controlled trial, which included 250 patients (mean age, sixty-four years) with osteoarthritis who were managed with total hip arthroplasty between October 1987 and January 1992, was conducted to compare the results of fixation with and without cement. Patients were followed for a mean of twenty years (range, seventeen to twenty-one years). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis at twenty years revealed significantly lower survival rates for cemented implants as compared with cementless implants. The cementless tapered stem had an extremely good survival rate of 99%. Radiographs showed evidence of mild stress-shielding around 95% of the cemented stems and 88% of the cementless stems; stress-shielding of grade 3 or greater was seen around the remaining 12% of the cementless stems.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".