Bibliographic record
Abstract
evaluate the effects of clinical factors on outcome after acetabular revision with a cementless beaded cup. DESIGN: Retrospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary care referral centre. PATIENTS: Forty-one patients who underwent acetabular revision with a cementless cup were followed up for a mean of 3.4 years. INTERVENTIONS: Acetabular revision with a beaded cementless cup in all patients. A morcellized allograft was used in 10 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: A modified Harris hip score (range of motion measurement omitted), the SF-36 health survey, and the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. Multivariate analysis was used to evaluate the effects of age, gender, morcellized allografting, time to revision from the previous operation, acetabular screw fixation and concurrent femoral revision on outcome. RESULTS: Gender accounted for a significant portion of the variation seen in the SF-36 physical component scores (r = 0.36, p = 0.02), with women tending to have worse results. Increasing age was associated with lower WOMAC index function scores (r = 0.36, p = 0.03), whereas concurrent femoral revision tended to have a positive effect on WOMAC index function (r = 0.39, p = 0.01). None of the potential clinical predictors had any significant effect on the SF-36 mental component scores, or WOMAC index pain and stiffness scores. CONCLUSIONS: In cementless acetabular revision arthroplasty, physical function, as measured by generic and limb-specific scales, may be affected by gender, age and the presence of a concurrent femoral revision. Time to revision from the previous operation, morcellized allografting and screw fixation of the acetabulum did not affect outcomes. This information may provide some prognostic value for patients ’ expectations. OBJECTIF: Évaluer les effets des facteurs cliniques sur le résultat après une révision acétabulaire avec cupule emboutie sans ciment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.193 | 0.061 |
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".