MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027332632 · doi:10.1055/s-2007-1019139

Endoscopically Assisted Sural Nerve Harvest in Infants

2008· article· en· W2027332632 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Capek, Howard M. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Plastic Surgery · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSural nervePopliteal fossaSurgeryDissection (medical)Brachial plexusPalsyRetractor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A technique of endoscopic sural nerve harvest was devised to minimize the donor site scarring in infants requiring peripheral nerve grafting procedures. The harvests were performed under tourniquet control using three 2-cm incisions for access at the lateral malleolus, midcalf, and popliteal fossa. Endoscopic visualization and blunt dissection of the nerve was achieved with a 4-mm-diameter, 18-cm-long telescope with a 0-degree angle lens, stabilized in an Emory retractor and attached to a video camera. The medial sural nerve was divided in the popliteal fossa proximally under direct vision. The lateral sural nerve was identified and harvested when present. This technique has been in use since 1994 and has been undertaken in more than 200 patients. The most common indication for surgery was obstetrical brachial plexus palsy. No nerve graft injury was noted upon examination under the operating microscope. Postoperative pain, swelling, and ecchymosis were minimal. Most patients have a detectable area of sensory loss at long-term follow-up but are unaware of this finding. Donor site scarring has been aesthetically satisfactory.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeminars in Plastic SurgerySame topicNerve Injury and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207