Erratum to: What Is the Natural History of Asymptomatic Pseudotumors in Metal-on-metal THAs at Mid-term Followup?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Erratum to: Clin Orthop Relat Res DOI 10.1007/s11999-016-4981-2 In the published study, “What Is the Natural History of Asymptomatic Pseudotumors in Metal-on-metal THAs at Mid-term Followup?” the second sentence in the Patients and Methods section incorrectly described a cohort of 71 patients as having “no pseudotumors identified on ultrasound scan at early followup”. The sentence should read: “From the 360 patients who underwent MoM THA, we identified a representative cohort of 71 patients who were clinically asymptomatic, had ultrasound scan at early followup, and had previously been evaluated for two other studies [12, 27].” Additionally, the first two sentences under the subhead “Revision Procedures for Pseudotumors” in the Patients and Methods section are unclear. The sentences should read: “In 2014 (a minimum 6.5 years from surgery; maximum, 9 years; mean, 7 years), after ethical approval, the clinical records of these 71 patients who were asymptomatic at the time of the authors’ earlier studies [12, 27], which reported on them at 3.5 years (3 to 5 years), were reviewed. In the years that followed, an additional eight patients became symptomatic and were revised at a mean of 5 years (3 to 6 years) since surgery. This left 63 patients in the present group with no symptoms from the hip, who underwent imaging and serum tests as described herein. The authors apologize for these 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 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.015 |
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".