MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292848290 · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.91b2.21567

Medical negligence in orthopaedic surgery

2009· article· en· W2292848290 on OpenAlexaff
Sam Gidwani, S. M. R. Zaidi, M. Bircher

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsHand and Upper Limb Clinic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPound (networking)PlaintiffMedicineExpert witnessMedical negligenceLawWitnessSettlement (finance)PaymentGeneral surgerySurgeryPolitical scienceBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Payments by the NHS Litigation Authority continue to rise each year, and reflect an increase in successful claims for negligence against NHS Trusts. Information about the reasons for which Trusts are sued in the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery is scarce. We analysed 130 consecutive cases of alleged clinical negligence in which the senior author had been requested to act as an expert witness between 2004 and 2006, and received information on the outcome of 97 concluded cases from the relevant solicitors. None of the 97 cases proceeded to a court hearing. Overall, 55% of cases were abandoned by the claimants' solicitors, and the remaining 45% were settled out of court. The cases were settled for sums ranging from pound 4500 to pound 2.7 million, the median settlement being pound 45,000. The cases that were settled out of court were usually the result of delay in treatment or diagnosis, or because of substandard surgical technique.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British VolumeSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207