Evidence-Based Indications for Distraction Ankle Arthroplasty
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to review the literature to provide a comprehensive description of the Level of Evidence (LOE) available to support the operative technique of distraction ankle arthroplasty for the current generally accepted indications and make a grade of recommendation for each. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed (November 2010 to January 2011) using the PubMed database. The abstracts from these searches were reviewed to isolate literature that described therapeutic studies investigating the results of distraction ankle arthroplasty. All articles were reviewed and assigned a classification (I-V) of Level of Evidence. An analysis of the literature reviewed was used to assign a Grade of Recommendation for each current generally accepted indication for distraction ankle arthroplasty. RESULTS: There is insufficient evidence based literature (Grade I) to support or refute the procedure for either: post-traumatic ankle arthritis, arthritis associated with ligamentous instability, primary degenerative joint disease, chondrolysis, deformity associated with arthritis, osteochondral defects and congenital ankle abnormalities. CONCLUSION: Inadequate evidence based literature exists to support or refute all currently accepted indications for distraction ankle arthroplasty and further high quality, scientific studies are needed upgrade to these recommendations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it