MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1715295812

폐쇄형과 개방형 경골 근위부 절골술의 비교

2012· article· ko· W1715295812 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
조세현, 황선철, 손강민, 김형간

Bibliographic record

Venue대한정형외과학회지 · 2012
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnkleSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

목적: 폐쇄형 및 개방형 경골 근위부 절골술 시행 환자의 술 전, 후 임상적 결과 및 방사선학적 변화를 평가하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법: 폐쇄형 군 75예, 개방형 군 41예였다. 고관절-슬관절-족근관절각(hip-knee-ankle [H-K-A] axis) 및 Ahlback 분류에 따른 관절염 정도를 측정하였다. 슬관절 기능은 Tegner 활동 점수, Lysholm 슬관절 점수, Western Ontario and McMaster University 점수로 평가하였다. 측면 방사선 사진에서 술 전, 후 슬개골의 위치 및 경골 후방 경사각을 측정하였다. 결과: Visual analogue scale 및 운동 범위는 모두에서 호전되었다. H-K-A 축은 내반에서 술 후 외반으로 교정되었고, 점진적으로 내측 관절증이 진행하였다. Body mass index는 관절염 진행과 유의한 연관이 있었다. 슬관절 기능은 전 예에서 호전되었다. 슬개골 높이는 폐쇄형 군은 고위, 개방형 군은 저위 현상이 나타났다. 경골 경사도는 폐쇄형 군은 감소, 개방형 군은 증가하였다. 내반이 재발한 경우는 총 16예였다. 결론: 폐쇄형 및 개방형 경골 근위부 절골술군 모두에서 기능적으로 호전되었으나 명확한 차이는 없었다. 반면, 슬개골의 높이와 경골 경사도는 서로 반대되는 결과를 확인할 수 있었다.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue대한정형외과학회지Same topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207