MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Technical Considerations and Avoiding Complications in Total Hip Arthroplasty

2022· article· en· W4318964755 on OpenAlexaff
John Krumme, Sean Bonanni, Nirav K. Patel, Gregory J. Golladay

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAOS Global Research and Reviews · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsObject Research Systems (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTotal hip arthroplastyArthroplastyProsthesisSurgeryHip arthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered to be the surgical procedure of the 20th century. Current projections show that by 2030, primary THA is expected to grow by 171%, with revision THA expected to increase by 142% in the same time frame. Although complications are not common, when they occur, they can cause notable morbidity to the patient. Understanding the unique anatomy and needs of each patient will prepare the surgeon to avoid soft-tissue or bony injury, optimize prosthesis placement, and decrease the risk of infection. This article aims to highlight common causes of early revision THA and provide specific technical strategies to avoid these complications. Following a systematic approach to the primary THA and using these techniques will assist the surgeon in avoiding complications to revision hip arthroplasty.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAOS Global Research and ReviewsSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207