MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of the Congenital Clubfoot Treated With the Ponseti Method

2001· article· en· W2322463888 on OpenAlexaff
Shafique Pirani, Laura Zeznik, David Hodges

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsRoyal Columbian HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubfootPonseti methodMedicineDeformityMagnetic resonance imagingTarsal BoneTreatment protocolSurgeryRadiologyAnkle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little information exists about the degree of efficacy of the several nonoperative treatments, such as manipulation and casting, used in correcting the pathology of the virgin clubfoot deformity. The steps in the correction of the displacements and anomalies of the skeletal components have never been visualized. The method reported to have the best long-term results is that of Ponseti. A magnetic resonance imaging protocol was devised to image the described chondroosseous abnormalities of the virgin clubfoot deformity and to illustrate the changes that occur with the Ponseti method of treatment. Scans were performed at the beginning of, in the middle of, and at the end of treatment. Images obtained with this protocol largely agree with postmortem studies of clubfeet. All of the major chondroosseous pathology could be visualized in vivo. With Ponseti treatment, all the abnormalities seen on the initial scans either improved markedly or corrected completely. Treatment resulted in correction not only of the abnormal relationships of the tarsal bones, but also of the abnormal shapes of the individual tarsal osteochondral anlages, probably because of the changes in growth resulting from the changes in mechanical loading of fast-growing tissues.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations146
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207