Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian prosthesis is indicated for the more proximal levels of amputation of the lower limb (very short trans-femoral, hip disarticulation and hemipelvectomy cases); it is frequently rejected by many patients for different reasons (awkwardness, intolerance of the socket, excessive energy expenditure to ambulate among others). The objective was to analyse the use or rejection of Canadian prostheses (n = 23) after an 8-year follow-up study (range: 2 -16 years). The sample consisted of 52% men and 48% women, and the average age at the time of amputation was 52.26 +/- 19.71 SD years (range: 1-74 years). The most frequent aetiology was malignant tumour (56.5%). Eight of the subjects continued to use the prosthesis through the entire study (34.7%). Gender, age, and aetiology were not significant determinants of use. The daily use was 12.5 h per day. The rejection of the Canadian prosthesis was after 20 months of use (range: 2-48 months), and the main reasons were death (all tumour causes), intolerance to the socket, or difficulty in ambulation. In conclusion, many years after their discharge from rehabilitation services, more than one-third of the sample (34.7%) were wearers of the Canadian prosthesis.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".