MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125686418 · doi:10.3109/10929080903194727

Computer assisted LISS plate placement: an<i>in vitro</i>study

2009· article· en· W2125686418 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

VenueComputer Aided Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Fractures and Fixation Techniques
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluoroscopySignificant differenceMetaphysisDiaphysisFemurCondyleOrthodonticsRadiation exposureNuclear medicineMedicineBiomedical engineeringSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A laboratory study was conducted to compare the accuracy with which a LISS plate could be placed on the distal metaphysis of a model femur using both a fluoroscopy-based computer assisted technique and the conventional fluoroscopic technique. A significant difference was found between outcomes with the two approaches with respect to the maximum distance from the plate to the diaphysis of the bone, but there was no significant difference in the maximum distance to the condylar area. There was also no difference with respect to the number of holes that required re-drilling for adjustment of the plate placement or screws with poor purchase in bone. There were, however, significant differences between the two techniques in terms of duration of the procedure and radiation exposure.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.267 · 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