Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three dimensional finite element (FE) model of a novel carbon fibre polyamide 12 composite hip stem was used to compare with two commerically available (Exeter and Omnifit) hip stems to minimize stress shielding and bone resorption. A virtual axial load of 3000N was applied to the FE model which replicated the experimental study. Strain and stress distributions were computed and compared with experimental results. Experimentally, three hip stems had their distal portions rigidly mounted and had strain gauges placed along the surface at 3 medial and 3 lateral locations. From the FE analysis, the von mises stress range for the composite hip stem was 200% and 45% lower than that in the Omnifit and Exeter implants, respectively. The aggregate average difference between FE and experimental microstrains for four proximal strain gauge locations were 7.5% (composite), 11.5% (Exeter), 14.6% (Omnifit), and the composite hip stem's stiffness (1982N/mm) was lower than the metallic hip stem stiffnesses (Exter, 2460N/mm; Omnifit, 2543 N/mm). This study showed considerable improvement in stress transfer to bone tissue.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".