MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Results of Utilizing Cerclage Wires in the Management of Intraoperative Vancouver B1 Fractures in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties: A Retrospective Cohort Investigation into Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes

2023· preprint· en· W4390298630 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caterina Rocchi, Vincenzo Di Matteo, Katia Chiappetta, Guido Grappiolo, Mattia Loppini

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeriprostheticRetrospective cohort studyRadiographySurgeryCohortFemurCohort studyArthroplastyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: due to increase in total hip arthroplasties (THAs), the incidence of periprosthetic hip fractures (PPHFs) is forecast to raise considerably in the next decades, with Vancouver B1 fractures (VB1) accounting for one third of total cases. Femur fixation with cerclages (with or without screws) is considered the current treatment option for intraoperative VB1. Methods: the study retrospectively includes data from patients who developed VB1 PPHFs during THAs from December 3rd 2020 to November 30th 2022. The primary outcome of this study was to identify the reintervention-free survival rate. The secondary aim was to determine clinical and radiographic assessment at follow-up, based on Harris hip score (HHS) and limb length discrepancy (LLD). Results: 37 patients with mean age 60.03 ± 15.49 (22 to 77) years old were included. Overall, the Kaplan-Meier estimated a re-operation free survival rate of 99% (CI 95%) at 6 months. The mean limb length discrepancy (LLD) improved from -3.69±6.07 (range -27.9 to 2.08) mm to 0.10±0.67 (range -1.07 to 1.20) mm. The mean HHS improved from 42.72±14.37 (range 21.00-96.00) to 94.40±10.32 (range 56.00-100.00).

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty→French-language works237,207→