MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062534264

Tratamiento de las fracturas periprotésicas de fémur Vancouver B2 y B3

2012· article· es· W7062534264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalcarPeriprostheticFemurProsthesisOrthopedic surgeryFemoral bone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundPeriprosthetic fractures of the femur are becoming more prevalent. When this fracture occurs in a loose stem (B2) or with bone loss (B3), the treatment is femoral stem revision.MethodsWe analyzed retrospectively 22 patients, 9 with type B2 fractures and 13 with type B3 fractures of the Vancouver classification. Follow-up averaged 48 months. We used cemented long stems, with impacted bone allograft, strut allograft, uncemented long stems (with distal fixation) and unconventional endoprosthesis according to the case.ResultsAll fractures healed and remodeled. The complications were 2 (9%) dislocations, 1 (4.5%) infection, 1 (4.5%) calcar fracture, 1 (4.5%) loosening of cemented acetabular component and 2 (9%) deaths.Conclusions The periprosthetic femoral fractures B2 and B3 require replacement of the femoral stem, while there is a trend to use uncemented stems; in this series due to the overlap of treatments according to each subtype of fracture, there were no differences between the use of cemented stems with allograft or uncemented stem. In cases of severe bone loss the unconventional endoprosthesis offer a treatment option for patients with low functional demand. The Vancouver classification is a useful tool to guide the surgeon on the treatment.

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)0.000
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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207