MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099888068

Correspondence should be sent

2011· article· en· W7099888068 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics Simulations and Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidence intervalSurvivorship curveOsteoarthritisRadiological weaponOrthopedic surgeryStatistical analysisStatistical significance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the clinical results and survivorship of consecutive 100 Birmingham Hip Resurfacings in 90 patients at a minimum follow-up of ten years. All procedures were carried out by an independent surgeon who commenced a prospective study in 1998. Patients were assessed clinically using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Short-Form 36, Harris hip score and University of California, Los Angeles activity score. Radiological analysis was performed by an independent observer and blood metal ion levels concentrations were measured at ten years post-operatively in 62 patients. The median acetabular component inclination was 46.2 ° (34 ° to 59°) and anteversion 11.0 ° (0 ° to 30°). The median chromium concentration in the unilateral group was 1.74 (0.41 to 15.23) and for the bilateral group was 2.98 (1.57 to 18.01). The equivalent values for cobalt were 1.67 (0.54 to 20.4) and 1.88 (1.38 to 19.32). In total there were eight failures giving an overall survival at ten years of 92 % (95% confidence interval (CI) 86.7 to 97.3). BHR in male patients had an improved survivorship of 94.6 % (95 % CI 89.4 to 100) compared with females at 84.6 % (95 % CI 70.7 to 98.5), but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.119). Four of the nine BHRs with a bearing

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.853
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics Simulations and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207