MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090241257 · doi:10.1186/1748-7161-7-s1-o46

Included or excluded pelvis – does the inclusion of the pelvis in the scoliotic process influence the outcome?

2012· article· en· W2090241257 on OpenAlexaff
A Circo, Christine Coillard, Charles‐Hilaire Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueScoliosis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic and Acetabular Injuries
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelvisMedicineOrthopedic surgeryProcess (computing)Inclusion (mineral)AnatomyPathologySurgeryComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Even though scoliosis is principally a deformity of the spine and the rib cage, some authors demonstrated that the pelvis can be included in the scoliotic process. Bernard Bricot concluded that the patients that presented with an excluded pelvis have a more evolving scoliosis. With regards to the pelvis we have two categories: the pelvis is excluded or included in the scoliotic process. In the first case the pelvis should be perfectly balanced, where as in the second group we can find a tilt, torsion or rotation of the pelvis. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to verify if the inclusion of the pelvis has an influence for the outcome of the 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 venueScoliosisSame topicPelvic and Acetabular InjuriesFrench-language works237,207