MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075533088 · doi:10.3928/01477447-20080101-36

Osteoarticular Autograft and Allograft Transplantation of the Knee: 3 year Follow-up

2008· article· en· W2075533088 on OpenAlex
Albert W. Pearsall, Sudhakar G Madanagopal, James T Hughey

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopedics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationSurgeryOrthopedic surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Between 1998 and 2001, a total of 48 patients underwent autologous or allograft osteoarticular transplantation with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Nineteen patients underwent concomitant procedures. Average patient age was 46 years. Graft area averaged 4.8 cm2 (range, 0.2-21.6 cm(2)). Grafts implanted included 24 autografts, 12 refrigerated allografts, and 12 frozen allografts. Average follow-up was 37.1 months (range, 24-63 months). Postoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Knee Society Score (KSS), and pain scores improved significantly. Age <35 years and male gender was associated with a positive outcome. There was no significant difference in improvement between autograft and allograft groups. Nine patients, considered failures, underwent total knee arthroplasty and data analysis. No significant relationship was noted for any variable. Eighty-one percent of grafts are still functioning >3 years after transplantation.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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