MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974745270 · doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0280-x

Extraarticular Fractures after Periacetabular Osteotomy

2008· article· en· W1974745270 on OpenAlexaff
Norman Espinosa, Joshua Strassberg, Étienne L. Belzile, Michael B. Millis, Young‐Jo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteotomyOrthopedic surgeryAcetabulumSports medicineSurgeryOrthodonticsPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Extraarticular fractures of the pelvic ring after periacetabular osteotomy could impair stability of the acetabular fragment and cause poor clinical and radiographic outcomes. We evaluated 17 patients (17 hips) with fractures of either the ipsilateral os pubis (n = 12) or os ischium (n = 5) during the postoperative period after periacetabular osteotomy. Ischial fractures seemed more debilitating with two of five resulting in painful nonunions for which additional surgery was performed. In contrast, only one patient with pubic fracture had additional surgery. Ischial fractures took almost twice as long to achieve resolution of symptoms compared with pubic fractures, and when left untreated, asymptomatic nonunions developed in three of five. However, we observed no effect on acetabular fragment positioning or long-term clinical outcome. It is essential to be aware of this potential complication and realize it could be accompanied by substantial morbidity for patients during the rehabilitation period after periacetabular osteotomy, but does not seem to influence the longer-term outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.355 · 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

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207