Evidence-Based Indications for Distraction Ankle Arthroplasty
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".