MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400349545 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.rvw.24.00064

Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty

2024· review· en· W4400349545 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTotal knee arthroplastyFixation (population genetics)ArthroplastySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Update This article was updated on August 23, 2024, because of a previous error. On page 1, the following footnote was omitted but has since been included: *Yasir AlShehri, MD, and Panayiotis D. Megaloikonomos, MD, contributed equally to this work as first authors. An erratum has been published: JBJS Rev. 2024;12(7):e24.00064ER. » The demographic profile of candidates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is shifting toward younger and more active individuals. » While cemented fixation remains the gold standard in TKA, the interest is growing in exploring cementless fixation as a potentially more durable alternative. » Advances in manufacturing technologies are enhancing the prospects for superior long-term biological fixation. » Current research indicates that intermediate to long-term outcomes of modern cementless TKA designs are comparable with traditional cemented designs. » The selection of appropriate patients is critical to the success of cementless fixation techniques in TKA. » There is a need for high-quality research to better understand the potential differences and relative benefits of cemented vs. cementless TKA systems.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.052

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.305 · 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