MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Femoral and tibial lengthening by the Wagner method

2006· article· en· W2333724470 on OpenAlexaff
Roger Gallien

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics B · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHôpital Saint-François d'Assise
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSequelaComplicationFemurSurgeryTibia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics BSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207