You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


1. The Field of the Invention.
The present invention relates generally to prosthetic implants, and more particularly, but not necessarily entirely, to a prosthetic hip stem system for enhanced interdigitation between the prosthetic implant and either bone or cement for increasing the torsional stability of the prosthetic implant within the femur.
2. Description of Related Art
It is known in the art to replace the natural hip joint with an artificial hip stem replacement. Numerous artificial implants are available that can be installed to replace the natural hip joint with an artificial ball and socket combination. The medullary canal may be opened using a reamer to create a passage through the medullary canal in the upper end of the femur where a hip stem may be implanted. A stem or femoral component of an artificial implant is inserted into the reamed portion of the medullary canal in a secure, seated position. Typically, femoral implants include a neck member that extends outward and away from the stem and terminates in a spherical knob for insertion into the acetabulum of the hip in rotational contact therewith about the three major orthogonal axes.
There are two major systems to secure the femoral component of the implant within the medullary canal of the femur. The first system utilizes the natural tendencies of the bone and allows the bone to grow into porous sections of the implant without the aid of cement. The cementless system requires the removal of all cancellous bone and uses bone ingrowth to form a tight, secure fit between the implant and the bone, which maintains the implant within the bone. This system was first introduced nearly forty years ago and has become the preferred method of installation due in part to the strength of the connection between the implant and the bone.
The second system utilizes bone cement to maintain the implant within the bone. The use of cement requires the removal of bone tissue while leaving a layer of cancellous bone tissue to anchor the implant with the aid of cement. This process was used extensively during the 1980's and is still used today on a more limited basis.
Both systems may be advantageous depending upon a patient's needs. For example, recovery from an operation using the cementless system takes an average of about three months before the patient may return to any activity so that the bone may be permitted to grow into the pores of the implant, which results in a connection that has the potential to endure in the patient for a long period of time. This system is recommended for patients who lead active lives and is typically used in relatively young patients. Conversely, the cemented system results in a decrease in pain compared to the cementless system and an increase in joint mobility. However, the interface between the bone, the cement and the implant may not last as long as the cementless system. Therefore, the cemented system is typically used in less active, older patients.
It is a fairly common occurrence for femoral implants to loosen from the bone or cement over time due in part to the high stresses placed on the hip joint. Attempts have been made in the prior art to increase the efficiency of the bond between the implant and either bone or cement, such that the loosening of the implant from the bone or cement over time is decreased. One way of improving the adhesion of the stem of the implant to the bone or cement is found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,430,761 (granted Feb. 14, 1984 to Niederer et al.). Niederer et al. discloses a femoral prosthesis having a plurality of parallel grooves formed on the shank or stem of the implant to improve adhesion of the shank in a prepared bone cavity.
However, the system disclosed by Niederer et al. is disadvantageous for those situations where, for one reason or another, the implant must be removed and replaced. The location of the grooves at the distal end of the femoral prosthesis is disadvantageous because during the removal process in order to completely loosen the implant from the bone the surgeon must have adequate access to those portions of the implant where bone ingrowth has occurred. With grooves located on the distal end of the implant, the surgeon does not have adequate access to loosen that portion of the implant from the bone and the implant is, therefore, very difficult to remove.
There are many other systems known in the prior art for improving the adhesion between the implant and the bone or cement, such as that disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,828,566 (granted on May 9, 1989 to Griss). This patent reference discloses a shank or stem having a recess in the proximal medial region with a U-shaped wire mesh disposed in said recess for providing an ingrowth of bone tissue and an absorption of shear micro movements between the bone and the implant. However, this system is disadvantageous because torsional forces may still be exerted on the implant, which may loosen the implant over time.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,965,490 (granted Jun. 29, 1976 to Murray et al.) discloses a femoral implant having one or more shallow teardrop-shaped depressions disposed in the flat sides of the curved proximal portion of the stem. These teardrop depressions provide extra surfaces and directional configuration, which facilitates retention within the medullary canal of the femur. However, this system is disadvantageous because there is a tendency for the implant to loosen from the cement due in part because the surface of the implant is smooth and does not provide a surface for interdigitation with the cement.
It is noteworthy that none of the prior art known to applicants provides a femoral implant having a tripartite differential porosity where the distal portion of the stem comprises the smoothest section, the proximal portion of the stem comprises a section rougher than the distal portion, and the teardrop recess comprises the roughest section of the stem and is rougher than the proximal portion. Applicants have discovered that it is advantageous for femoral implants used as part of a total hip replacement system to mimic the natural biomechanics of the hip through increasing the lateral offset, which is accomplished by increasing the length of the neck portion of the implant, which thereby increases the torsional load on the femoral implant. Applicants have further discovered that the use of differential roughness on the proximal portion, distal portion and the recessed portion of the stem opposes and resists the increased torsional load placed on the femoral implant. There is a long felt but unmet need, for a tripartite differential porosity femoral implant which has the ability to resist the increased torsional loads created by the larger lateral offset. This is accomplished by using a recessed section that may be advantageously located on both the posterior and anterior sides of the prosthesis, resulting in an increase in torsional stability in the connection between the stem and the femur. The increase in stability is due, at least in part, to the recessed section located at the posterior and anterior sides of the prosthesis, but not on the medial or lateral sides of the prosthesis, such that abrasion wear is not increased on the medial side.
The prior art is thus characterized by several disadvantages that are addressed by the present invention. The present invention minimizes, and in some aspects eliminates, the above-mentioned failures, and other problems, by utilizing the methods and structural features described herein.
The features and advantages of the invention will be set forth in the description which follows, and in part will be apparent from the description, or may be learned by the practice of the invention without undue experimentation. The features and advantages of the invention may be realized and obtained by means of the instruments and combinations particularly pointed out in the appended claims.