MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The surgical treatment of teratologic dislocation of the hip

2005· article· en· W2025962545 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Eve LeBel, Roger Gallien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsCentrale des Syndicats du QuébecHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryReduction (mathematics)Avascular necrosisWeaknessComplicationOsteotomyTrunkFemoral head

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1974, our approach to treatment of teratologic dislocation of the hip in children has been surgical. We retrospectively reviewed 20 teratologic hip dislocations in 13 children with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Closed treatment failed in most of the hips. At a mean age of 13 months, 11 patients (18 hips) had an open reduction and a one-and-a-half hip spica. It was followed in most of these hips by a femoral varus derotational osteotomy 6 weeks later. Only three hips had an open reduction followed by 3 months of casting. One of these three hips had salmonella infection and a redislocation. Our main complication was avascular necrosis in 20% of hips, two patients (two hips) ending with a leg length discrepancy. There was some limitation of motion in 65% of hips but 76% of patients had a good functional hip score. There was no difference in the results of unilateral versus bilateral dislocation. Poor results were found in three patients and could be explained by trunk hypotonia, marked limitation of motion and severe involvement of upper extremities, multiple deformities and fixed flexion in the lower extremities, generalized weakness and developmental delay. In spite of these difficulties and complications, results are encouraging.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics BSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207