MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282001666 · doi:10.1016/j.artd.2022.04.014

Adverse Local Tissue Reaction Associated With Ceramic-On-Metal Bearing Surface in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Report of Two Cases

2022· article· en· W4282001666 on OpenAlexaff
Fernando Diaz, Marcos Raúl Latorre, Fernando Comba, Gerardo Zanotti, Pablo A. Slullitel, Martín Buttaro

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroplasty Today · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBearing surfaceTotal hip arthroplastyBearing (navigation)ImplantSurgeryHip arthroplastyArthroplastyAdverse effectCeramicMaterials scienceComposite materialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common and successful surgical procedures worldwide. At the same time, it is constantly evolving, and as a consequence, advances in implant technology have led to significant improvements in the different materials of the acetabular and femoral components. The selection of bearing surfaces and their tribology are critical to achieving a successful outcome. Pseudotumors are important, and usually misdiagnosed, complications associated with hard bearing surfaces such as metal-on-metal couples. They belong to a group of reactions called adverse local tissue reaction, which can occur in the vicinity of any THA. We present 2 cases of adverse local tissue reaction associated with the use of ceramic-on-metal bearings surfaces in 2 primary THAs that were treated with modular component exchange during single-stage revision surgery. Level of Evidence: IV.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroplasty TodaySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207