MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162217047 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.86b1.14347

Functional recovery in patients with nonunion treated with the Ilizarov technique

2004· article· en· W2162217047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Barker, Sarah E Lamb, Hamish Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonunionMedicineRehabilitationIlizarov TechniqueProspective cohort studySurgeryPhysical medicine and rehabilitationOrthopedic surgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are few reports on function after limb salvage surgery using the Ilizarov technique, and none that document the pattern of recovery or predict when maximum function returns. This prospective, longitudinal study documents the baseline functional abilities of 40 consecutive patients with nonunion of a fracture in the lower limb. Patients were studied for at least two and a half years following the completion of surgery. Function was measured by timed tests of functional performance and by the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score self-reported patient questionnaire. Recovery was slowest in the early stages after removal of the frame and greatest between six months and one year. Statistically significant improvement continued up to, but not beyond two years. This observation has important implications for the length of follow-up incorporated into the rehabilitation programmes for patients, predictions of patient status in regard to compensation and for the design of future studies to evaluate functional outcome.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations51
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207