MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079774361 · doi:10.1007/s11999-008-0514-y

DEXA as a Predictor of Fixator Removal in Distraction Osteogenesis

2008· article· en· W2079774361 on OpenAlexaff
Neil Saran, Reggie C. Hamdy

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Orthopaedics and Related Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityShriners Hospitals for Children - Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone healingSurgeryBone mineralExternal fixatorDistraction osteogenesisRadiographyFixation (population genetics)Orthopedic surgeryExternal fixationDentistryDistractionOsteoporosisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Premature removal of the fixator after a lengthening procedure can result in gradual bending or acute fracture of the regenerate. We reviewed the records of 26 patients who underwent 28 limb lengthenings between 1997 and 2005 to assess the post lengthening regenerate fracture rate and bone healing index when using dual energy xray absorptiometry (DEXA) to aid in deciding on when to remove the fixator. Sixteen male and 10 female patients with an average age at lengthening of 12.3 years underwent an average lengthening of 5.2 cm (range, 3-9.1 cm). Nineteen femurs and nine tibiae were lengthened. Serial monthly DEXA scans were analyzed for bone mineral density. Bone healing indices and post fixator removal complications were assessed. The fixators were removed once the bone mineral density had plateaued to a less than 10% increase and plain radiographs showed no obvious defects precluding fixator removal. There were no regenerate fractures and only one fracture in the proximal segment of the lengthened bone after apparatus removal and the healing index for the series averaged 47 d/cm (range, 20-73 d/cm). Using serial DEXA scans during the consolidation phase of lengthening has a low rate (3.6%) of fractures while maintaining an acceptable bone healing index without excessively increasing fixation time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic retrospective study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Orthopaedics and Related ResearchSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207