MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059461991

Pectus Deformities: Is Kirschner Use Sufficient for Sternal Stabilization?

2012· article· en· W2059461991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fuat Sayır, Abidin Şehitoğulları, Bünyamin Sertoğullarından, Ufuk Çobanoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Current Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPectus excavatumMedicinePectus carinatumSurgeryKirschner wireSternumDeformityFunnel ChestFixation (population genetics)Internal fixation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background : The results of correxion surgery of the chest wall deformities are pretty good. The aims of surgery are provide cosmetic improvement and eliminate the negative side-effects of on the cardiopulmonary system. We presented our clinic experince in patients who were operated with pectus deformities.  Methods: Between 2003 - 2011, total of 41 patients who underwent modified Rawitch technique with pectus excavatum and pectus carinatum were included in this study. Kirschner wire was used for sternal fixation. Kirshner wire was taken between postoperative 12 - 15 days.  Results :  No mortality was observed. Recurrence occured in one patient (2.4%). Operative time lasted between 2.2 - 3.2 hours (mean 1.8 hours). Age, ranged  between 4 - 26 years, mean age was 14.3 years. Thirteen of patients were pectus carinatum, and 25 of them were pectus excavatum. Three patients had mixed type deformity. There were no major complications. The morbidity rate was 26.8%. Mean hospital stay was 18.3 days (17 - 28 days). Conclusions : Cosmetic and psychological problems in patients with pectus deformities improved with surgical correction. In addition, this operation eliminates the negative effects of cardiopulmonary system. The stabilization of sternum with Kirschner wire is a cheap, effective and uncomplicated. doi:10.4021/jcs46w

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Current SurgerySame topicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207