Valgus high tibial osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A matched-pair comparative analysis was done comparing outcomes between a Coventry-type closing wedge valgus high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and an HTO using an Ilizarov apparatus. Thirty patients were treated with a mean follow-up interval of 28.1 months. Functional outcomes were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index. Clinical and radiographic assessment of the index knee, complications, and over-all satisfaction of the patients were assessed. The procedures were performed between 1994 and 1997. The two groups were equal with respect to baseline demographics - age, sex, body mass index, smoking status. The patients undergoing an Ilizarov HTO had a significantly greater decrease in pain and increase in function at final follow-up assessment. Eleven of the 15 patients in the Ilizarov group were satisfied with the procedure compared to five in the closing wedge HTO group. The treatment of medial compartment osteoarthritis in genu varum of the knee with an Ilizarov apparatus produces outcomes that are comparable to the standard lateral closing wedge osteotomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".