Biomechanical study of improved memory alloy embracing fixators in treatment of periprosthetic femoral fracture due to hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To study the mechanics of improved memory alloy fixators for salvage of periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) after hip arthroplasty in the elderly. Methods Thirty countrymen fresh cadaveric femurs with no pathological defect, fracture, deformity or tumor were randomly divided into experimental group and control group with 15 femurs in each according to the random number table. A model of Vancouver type B1 periprosthetic femoral fracture following hip arthroplasty was induced. The fracture was treated with modified memory alloy embracing fixators in experimental group; instead general memory alloy embracing fixators in control group. All specimens were tested biomechanically. Results Under the same mechanical loading, the two groups showed respective 30% and 48% maximum differences in stress value and displacement. Results in three-point bending test did not differ significantly between the two groups (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in axial compression and torsion test (P<0.05 or 0.01). Conclusion The improved memory alloy embracing fixators present better resistance to compression and torsion compared to the general fixators. Key words: Internal fixators; Arthroplasty, replacement, hip; Periprosthetic fractures; Memory, alloy
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".