Agreement Between a Physical Therapist and an Orthopedic Surgeon in Children Referred for Gait Abnormalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare diagnostic and treatment agreement between a physical therapist (PT) and a pediatric orthopedic surgeon for gait variations in children. METHODS: This pilot study involved children referred to a pediatric orthopedic surgeon for typical gait variations. A PT and an orthopedic surgeon individually assessed each child, making conclusions regarding diagnoses, treatment, and follow-up. Agreement was determined using κ values. RESULTS: Twenty-five children (9 months to 11 years) were assessed. The PT and the surgeon had substantial agreement on contributors to the atypical gait patterns (76% agreement; κ = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.45-0.90) and almost perfect agreement on underlying diagnosis of gait variation (93% agreement; κ = 0.89; 95% CI = 0.75-1.0), with substantial agreement for treatment (82% agreement; κ = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.47-0.97) and follow-up recommendations (84% agreement; κ = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.24-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: A pediatric PT and an orthopedic surgeon had substantial to almost perfect agreement for diagnoses, treatment, and follow-up in children referred for gait abnormalities.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".