MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319444231

ASSESSMENT OF ILIZAROV CORRECTION OF RESISTANT CLUBFOOT DEFORMITY USING A VARIETY OF OUTCOME MEASURES

2003· article· en· W2319444231 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.H. Hutchinson, J Fernandes, M. Ruksal Saleh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClubfootGaitHeelGait analysisPhysical examinationAnklePhysical therapyDeformityPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reviewed the outcome of 30 patients treated with an Ilizarov frame for resistant clubfoot deformity. Each patient was assessed using objective and subjective outcome measures. We used clinical examination, X-ray analysis, pedobarography and gait analysis and the Activities Scale for Kids questionnaire, developed and validated by The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. The average questionnaire score was 83. This suggested a good subjective outcome when compared to the average score of 38 achieved by children with untreated clubfoot. Patients were into 2 groups using this score. Patients scoring over 75 were considered to have a good outcome and those scoring less than 75 were considered to have a bad outcome. The objective results were then compared. We found no difference between the 2 groups using clinical examination and X-ray. Pedobarography showed lower pressures in the bad subjective group, in particular virtually no pressure was generated under the heel when walking. The pressure distribution also showed the bad group to have the pressure balance towards the front of the foot over the 5 th metatarsal head. Gait analysis showed differences. The bad group had increased pelvic obliquity and increased pelvic movement suggesting an inefficient gait, increased hip abduction in swing, hyperextension of the knee on loading and decreased dorsiflexion of the ankle in swing when compared to the good group. Our conclusions were that subjectively this group of patients did well after surgical treatment using an Ilizarov frame. Clinical examination can show significant intra- and inter-observer error and X-ray is unreliable in children whose feet are congenitally deformed. Pedobarography and gait analysis seem to correlate better with subjective outcome. We know that a good foot is a functional foot and it may be that functional assessment is a more appropriate means of assessing results of treatment in these patients.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207