MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393244575 · doi:10.20408/jti.2023.0069

Atypical Vancouver B1 periprosthetic fracture of the proximal femur in the United Kingdom: a case reportchallenged by myeloma, osteoporosis, infection, and recurrent implant failures

2024· article· en· W4393244575 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sayantan Saha, Azeem Ahmed, Rama Mohan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Trauma and Injury · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriprostheticMedicineNonunionOsteoporosisSurgeryImplantFemoral fractureFemurStress fracturesImplant failureInsufficiency fractureArthroplastyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The indications for total hip replacement are increasing and not limited to osteoarthritis. Total hip replacement may also be done for trauma and pathological fractures in patients otherwise physiologically fit and active. This trend has led to an inevitable rise in complications such as periprosthetic femoral fracture. Periprosthetic femoral fracture can be challenging due to poor bone quality, osteoporosis, and stress fractures. We present a case of periprosthetic femoral fracture in a 71-year-old woman with some components of an atypical femoral fracture. The fracture was internally fixed but was subsequently complicated by infection, implant failure needing revision, and later stress fracture. She was on a bisphosphonate after her index total hip replacement surgery for an impending pathological left proximal femur fracture, and this may have caused the later stress fracture. Unfortunately, she then experienced implant breakage (nonunion), which was treated with a biplanar locking plate and bone grafting. The patient finally regained her premorbid mobility 13 months after the last surgery and progressed satisfactorily towards bony union.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Trauma and InjurySame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207