Did wear simulator testing indicate biotribological risk for the ASR hip implant systems prior to market release <i>circa</i> 2004?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The DePuy ASR hip implant systems had exceptionally high Cumulative Percent Revision compared with other implants in Australia. This was likely to be the case worldwide and thus the ASR hip implant systems were voluntarily withdrawn by DePuy on August 24, 2010. To avoid such debacles in future implant systems, it is instructive for biotribologists to examine the warnings provided by hip wear simulator testing prior to market release circa 2004. The ASR hip implants had metal-on-metal bearings that had shown some success in other designs. Based on hip wear simulator studies of these designs (mostly having 28 mm diameter heads), a Safe Zone for Wear Rates versus Implantation Time could be defined. However, some of the earlier metal-on-metal designs were wear simulator tested under some harsher clinically relevant conditions. They missed the Safe Zone thus confirming a biotribological risk for ASR hip implant systems. Subsequent analysis after market release of the ASR implants confirmed that the risk had been underestimated. Biotribological risk for new implant designs should be examined rigorously prior to market release.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".