Femoral and tibial lengthening by the Wagner method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article represents a review of the author's experience with the Wagner lengthening device. Forty patients between 6 and 20 years of age underwent 44 lengthenings of the lower extremity by Wagner's technique (34 femoral and 10 tibial) between February 1977 and January 1999. Shortening was congenital in origin in 24 patients. Lengthening achieved averaged 5.69 cm for the femur and 4.3 cm for the tibia. No complication was observed in 50% of the lengthenings (category I). At least one complication modified the program and necessitated further surgery and general anesthesia in 45.45% of lengthenings (category II). The program was not completed in one patient and complications resulted in a sequela in another patient, representing 4.54% of lengthenings (category III). Twenty-one of the 22 lengthenings without complication were at the femur. Complications were more frequent in patients with a congenital origin. Many complications but no disastrous problems were encountered. Lengthening is better tolerated in children older than 10 years of age. Thirty-nine patients completed their program and were left with less than 2.5 cm discrepancy at the end of growth. The average follow-up was 8.10 years.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it