MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178973085 · doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000000468

Dealing With Catastrophic Outcomes and Amputations in the Mangled Limb

2015· review· en· W2178973085 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa K. Cannada, Danielle Melton, Matthew E. Deren, Roman A. Hayda, Edward J. Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmputationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful management of the mangled extremity is difficult; however, recent advancements are changing the outcomes of these difficult cases. Multiple centers are working on new bionic limbs with real-time feedback and better performance parameters. Research progress, particularly in the military sector, has aided in our understanding of heterotopic ossification after devastating limb injuries. This progress has also allowed a better treatment program for the residual limb in surgery and postsurgery. It is an exciting time in the management and rehabilitation of amputated limbs, as both biologic and technological advancements are enabling better patient satisfaction. This article looks at some of these discoveries and how they are changing the treatment of the residual limb.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Orthopaedic TraumaSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207