MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Medial Column Fusion for Type 2 Posterior Tibial Tendon Deficiency: The Navicular Cuneiform Fusion to Correct Forefoot Varus

2003· article· en· W2047118267 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair Younger, Kevin Wing

Bibliographic record

VenueTechniques in Foot & Ankle Surgery · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForefootMedicineValgusCoronal planeDeformityFoot (prosody)CuneiformHeelOrthodonticsValgus deformityNavicular boneAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The following article describes the role of navicular cuneiform fusion in flatfoot reconstruction. Forefoot varus is a consistent deformity present in symptomatic adult flatfoot. The navicular cuneiform fusion will correct forefoot varus on the hindfoot. A mild degree of flexible hindfoot valgus will correct after the forefoot has been reduced. We therefore use the navicular cuneiform fusion as the initial procedure for adult flatfoot reconstruction. The navicular cuneiform fusion is performed in isolation when the main deformity is forefoot varus, and the hindfoot is mobile. This can be determined by a reverse Coleman block test. By correcting the foot to a neutral position, the tension symptoms on the medial border of the foot (tibialis posterior tendonitis) and the impingement symptoms on the lateral border of the foot are resolved. Other concomitant procedures may be required to resolve other components of the flatfoot deformity, such as a medializing calcaneal osteotomy or subtalar fusion for residual hindfoot valgus. A heel cord lengthening is almost always required.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechniques in Foot & Ankle SurgerySame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207