MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087909538 · doi:10.5978/islsm.18.85

REVIEW OF PATIENTS WITH PERTHES DISEASE RESPONDING POORLY TO NEAR INFRARED IRRADIATION THERAPY

2009· article· en· W2087909538 on OpenAlexaff
Yoshim Asagai, Kengo Yamamoto, Toshio Ohshiro

Bibliographic record

VenueLASER THERAPY · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsiNano Medical (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryBraceFemoral headExacerbationStage (stratigraphy)DeformityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1993, we have applied a combination of brace treatment and near infrared irradiation therapy (NIIT) in 23 cases of Perthes disease. We previously reported that in patients in whom this combined therapy was started before the early fragmentation stage, lateral pillar formation through ossification of the lateral femoral head occurred quickly and exacerbation of femoral head deformity was mild, thereby shortening the period required for treatment. However, of the 16 patients who began to receive the combination of brace treatment and near infrared irradiation therapy during the early stage of Perthes disease, 4 developed evident femoral head collapse of varying degrees during treatment and 2 of these 4 were rated as poor according to Mose’s criteria. Collapse occurred 5-6 months after the start of treatment. In the 2 cases rated as poor according to Mose’s criteria, it seemed that weight-bearing and one-month suspension of treatment had also affected the onset of collapse. To improve the outcome of near infrared irradiation therapy, it seems desirable to continue daily application without allowing any intervals to the treatment of one week or longer. Furthermore, it is essential to ensure the correct parameters of the NIIT system and the number of sessions, restrict weight bearing and use a brace carefully during the first 7 months of treatment.

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)0.000
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 score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLASER THERAPYSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207