Metal-on-Metal Versus Polyethylene in Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A prospective, randomized, blinded clinical trial was done to evaluate polyethylene versus metal bearing surfaces in total hip replacement. Forty-one patients were randomized to receive either a metal (23 patients) or a polyethylene (18 patients) insert. The femoral and acetabular components were identical with the acetabular insert the only variable. Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively using radiographs, multiple outcome measures (Western Ontario MacMaster University Score, Harris hip score, Short Form-12), erythrocyte metal ion analysis (cobalt, chromium, titanium), and urine metal ion analysis (cobalt, chromium, titanium). Patients were followed up for a minimum of 2 years (mean 3.2 years; range, 2.2–3.9 years). There were no differences in radiographic outcomes or outcome measurement tools between patients. Patients receiving a metal-on-metal articulation had significantly elevated erythrocyte and urine metal ions compared with patients receiving a polyethylene insert. Patients who had metal-on-metal inserts had on average a 7.9-fold increase in erythrocyte cobalt, a 2.3-fold increase in erythrocyte chromium, a 1.7-fold increase in erythrocyte titanium, a 35.1-fold increase in urine cobalt, a 17.4-fold increase in urine chromium, and a 2.6-fold increase in urine titanium at 2 years followup. Patients receiving a polyethylene insert had no change in erythrocyte titanium, urine cobalt, or urine chromium and a 1.5-fold increase in erythrocyte cobalt, a 2.2-fold increase in erythrocyte chromium, and a 4.2-fold increase in urine titanium. Forty-one percent of patients receiving metal-on-metal articulations had increasing metal ion levels at the latest followup.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".