MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224233176 · doi:10.1080/10255842.2022.2064712

Computational prediction of the long-term behavior of the femoral density after THR using the Silent Hip stem

2022· article· en· W4224233176 on OpenAlexaff
Zainab Al-Hajaj, Pouria Tavakkoli Avval, Habiba Bougherara

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsCentennial CollegeToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)MedicineBiomedical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aseptic loosening due to the progressive periprosthetic bone resorption following total hip replacement is a crucial concern, that causes complications and failure of the arthroplasty surgery. The mismatch in stiffness between the hip implant and the surrounding femoral bone is one of the key factors leading to bone density resorption. This paper aimed to investigate the long-term response of the femoral bone after THR using the Silent Hip stem. For this purpose, a validated thermodynamic-based computational model was used to compute the change in bone density before and after THR. This model incorporated essential factors involved in bone remodeling process, such as mechanical loading, and biochemical affinities. The results of the numerical simulations using 3D finite element analysis were analyzed in five zones of interest qualitatively and quantitatively. Bone density predictions showed notable bone resorption in cervical areas, specifically in zone 1 and zone 5 of -18.7% and -14%, respectively. Conversely, bone formation was observed in the greater trochanter area (zone 2) of +25%. Stress shielding seemed to occur at cervical area due to the reduction in the mechanical loading in this region. Based on the quantitative analysis of the bone density distribution throughout the femoral bone, it appears that the Silent Hip stem achieved less bone resorption compared to conventional hip stem designs reported in the literature, which could be used for active patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer Methods in Biomechanics & Biomedical EngineeringSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207