Factors predicting the outcome of primary clubfoot surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the rate of further surgery, the functional outcome and the factors associated with outcome after primary clubfoot surgery. METHOD: We conducted a retrospective study of a cohort of all children who were less than 2 years of age at the time of surgery for idiopathic clubfoot deformity at the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ont., a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Of the 91 families who could be contacted, 63 agreed to return. The children's charts were reviewed, and their feet were given a Functional Rating System (FRS) score. RESULTS: Of the original operated population (n = 126), 75% were male and 41% had bilateral clubfoot. The average age at the time of surgery was 8 months, and the mean follow-up was 80.6 months. Further surgery was performed in 19% of cases. The mean FRS outcome score was 79. On average, the FRS score increased by 1.9 points as age at the time of surgery increased by 1 month. Only the presurgical talocalcaneal index was associated with the need for further surgery. CONCLUSION: The need for further surgery was 19% overall. Children who had surgery closer to 12 months of age had better functional results. Therefore, surgery should probably be performed in the second, rather than the first, 6 months of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".