MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328716719 · doi:10.1097/bpo.0b013e318281968e

Management of Hip Instability in Trisomy 21

2013· article· en· W2328716719 on OpenAlexaff
Simon P. Kelley, John H. Wedge

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubluxationOsteotomyRadiographySurgeryDysplasiaNatural historyTrisomyHip dysplasiaOrthodonticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The unstable hip in Trisomy 21 presents with a spectrum of hip instability with different problems at different ages. What links this multiphase problem, in many patients, is the final common pathway of untreated instability, that of a stiff, dislocated, and often-painful hip, leading to significant functional disability. Historically, the results of treating hip instability in Trisomy 21 were variable with a notable frequency of poor results. With an improved understanding of the Trisomy 21 hip in terms of its pathoanatomy and a more contemporary surgical approach to hip reconstruction, much improved results can be expected and indeed have recently been shown. The mainstay of treatment for the habitual dislocation group presenting before 8 years of age is the femoral varus derotation osteotomy. The older group presenting with painful subluxation often show signs of secondary acetabular dysplasia and thus are best treated with redirectional acetabular osteotomy with or without the use of femoral varus derotation osteotomy. The presence of radiographic features of degenerative arthritis in the fixed dislocation group precludes the use of joint-preserving techniques for hip reconstruction, and these patients can achieve excellent results with total joint arthroplasty. The natural history, historical results, assessment, treatment, and management of complications of hip instability in Trisomy 21 are addressed in this paper.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207