Heterotopic Ossification Following Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a frequent complication following hip surgery. Using data from the Hip Fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip Arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) trial, we aimed to (1) determine the prevalence of HO following total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fracture in patients ≥50 years of age, (2) identify whether HO is associated with an increased risk of revision surgery within 24 months after the fracture, and (3) determine the impact of HO on functional outcomes. METHODS: We performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis using revision surgery as the dependent variable and HO as the independent variable. We compared Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores between participants with and those without HO at 24 months. RESULTS: Of 1,441 participants in the study, 287 (19.9%) developed HO within 24 months. HO was not associated with subsequent revision surgery. Grade-III HO was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant deterioration in the total WOMAC score, which was mainly related to the function component of the score, compared with grade I or II. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of grade-III HO on the functional outcomes and quality of life after THA for hip fracture is clinically important, and HO prophylaxis for selected high-risk patients may be appropriate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".