MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W215454688 · doi:10.1177/229255031101900104

Incorrect Radiographic Evaluation After Vascularized Bone Grafting for Scaphoid Fracture Or Nonunion

2011· article· en· W215454688 on OpenAlexaffvenue
P Morin, Rudy Reindl, Gregory K. Berry, Edward J. Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plastic Surgery · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineScaphoid fractureNonunionSurgeryScaphoid boneRadiographyPalpationBone graftingBone healingDorsumAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The present study is a review of patients with scaphoid non-unions treated with a dorsal vascularized bone graft. The study highlights a subset of patients incorrectly diagnosed as graft failures. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received vascularized grafts for scaphoid nonunions was performed over a four-year period. The vascularized graft of choice for this group was the dorsal radial extensor compartment artery. RESULTS: Five patients from a scaphoid fracture group who were treated with vascularized grafts were diagnosed as being failures (average of five months). None of these patients had tenderness on palpation of the scaphoid, and they were scheduled for revised vascularized grafts. All patients at the time of surgery were found to have healed. These patients were treated with arthrolysis, resulting in healing and full range of motion. CONCLUSIONS: Scaphoid vascularized grafts may have a markedly delayed radiographic healing time. Reoperation to perform secondary vascularized procedures may result in unnecessary surgery. Early imaging following a scaphoid vascularized graft may be inaccurate and may demonstrate a continued nonunion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plastic SurgerySame topicOrthopedic Surgery and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207