Erratum to: Is Cemented or Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation More Durable in Patients Older than 75 Years of Age? A Comparison of the Best-performing Stems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the study, “Is Cemented or Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation More Durable in Patients Older Than 75 Years of Age? A Comparison of the Best-performing Stem,” the word “cementless” was used in several locations where the word “cemented” was intended. The corrected sentences are listed here (with the word changes marked in bold type): In the Questions/purposes section of the Abstract, the second question should be: “(2) Are there any diagnoses (such as osteoarthritis [OA] or femoral neck hip fracture) in which the three best-performing cementless stems had better survivorship than one of the three best-performing cemented stems?” In the Methods section of the Abstract, the sentence should be: “Likewise, among patients with OA and femoral neck fracture, the cumulative percent revision was consistently higher at 1 month postoperatively among those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems than those treated with one of the three best-performing cemented stems (OA: HR for best three cementless versus best three cemented = 8.82 [95% CI, 5.08-15.31], p < 0.001; hip fracture: HR for best 3 cementless versus best three cemented = 27.78 [95% CI, 1.39-143.3], p < 0.001).” In the Introduction, the question should be: “(2) Are there any diagnoses (such as osteoarthritis [OA] or femoral neck hip fracture) in which the three best-performing cementless stems had better survivorship than one of the three best-performing cemented stems?” In the Results section, the sentence should be: “Likewise, among patients with OA (Fig. 3) and femoral neck fracture (Fig. 4) who were older than 75 years of age, the CPR was consistently higher at 1 month postoperatively among those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems than those treated with one of the three best-performing cemented stems (OA: HR for best three cementless versus best three cemented = 8.82 [95% CI, 5.08-15.31], p < 0.001; hip fracture: HR for best three cementless versus best three cemented = 27.78 [95% CI, 1.39-143.3], p < 0.001).” In the Discussion section, the corrected sentence should be: “In femoral neck fractures, the CPR was consistently higher at 1 month postoperatively among those treated with one of the three best-performing cementless stems than those treated with one of the three best-performing cemented stems.” The authors apologize for the errors.
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 | 0.006 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.012 |
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".