MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097852189

Correspondence should be sent

2009· article· en· W7097852189 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemoral headConfidence intervalGroinOsteoarthritisProsthesisAcetabulumHip surgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implantation of a large-diameter femoral head prosthesis with a metal-on-metal bearing surface reduces the risk of dislocation, increases the range of movement, minimises the risk of impingement and, in theory, results in little wear. Between February 2004 and March 2007 we implanted 100 consecutive total hip replacements with a metal-on-metal bearing and a large femoral head into 92 patients. There were 51 men and 41 women with a mean age of 50 years (18 to 70) at the time of surgery. Outcome was assessed using the Western Ontario McMaster University osteoarthritis index and the Harris hip score as well as the Devane activity score. These all improved significantly (p < 0.0001). At the last follow-up there were no cases of dislocation, no impingement, a good range of movement and no osteolysis, but seven revisions, two for infection and five for aseptic loosening. The probability of groin pain increased if the other acetabular component inclination exceeded 50 ° (p = 0.0007). At 4.8 years of follow-up, the projected survival of the Durom acetabular component, with revision for any reason, was 92.4 % (SD 2.8) (95 % confidence interval 89.6 to 95.2).

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9330.817

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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