MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095319772 · doi:10.2176/nmc.40.187

Peripheral Nerve Repair and Grafting Techniques. A Revrew.

2000· review· en· W2095319772 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurologia medico-chirurgica · 2000
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNerve Injury and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNerve repairPeripheral nerveMedicineSurgeryEpineurial repairGraftingPeripheral nerve injuryNerve injuryDisadvantageComputer scienceAnatomyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this review, various conventional nerve repair techniques including direct epineurial repair, grouped fascicular repair, fascicular repair, and nerve grafting are described. The indications for use, as well as the relative advantage and disadvantage, of each technique are discussed. The experimental and clinical evidence from a review of the pertinent literature does not demonstrate a significant difference in outcome of one method over the others. Surgical decisions should be made by a thorough evaluation of all aspects of the nerve injury and surgical methods. All nerve injuries cannot be repaired using only one type of nerve repair method. The surgeon should be familiar with all the techniques described and be prepared to use them under appropriate circumstances.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.302 · 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