MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617276221 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2943w

Chronic Achilles Tendon Rupture Reconstruction Using the Lindholm Method and the Vulpius Method

2017· article· en· W2617276221 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fırat Ozan, Fatih Doğar, Kaan Gürbüz, Yakup Ekinci, Şemmi Koyuncu, Hazım Sekban

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAchilles tendonAchilles tendon ruptureAnkleHeelTendonSurgeryRange of motionActivities of daily livingPhysical therapyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We investigated the clinical and functional outcomes of chronic Achilles tendon rupture reconstruction via the Lindholm technique and via the Vulpius' lengthening of the gastrocnemius. METHODS: We evaluated 15 patients with chronic Achilles tendon rupture (Lindholm technique in eight patients and primary repair with the Vulpius technique in seven patients). In the final follow-up, the Hooker scale was used to measure the ankle functional capacity in all patients. The patients were evaluated on the basis of their capability to stand on tiptoe on the affected limb and the time required to return to pre-injury daily activities. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 19.6 months (range, 12 - 38 months). The mean time to return to work and daily activity was 3.2 months. The mean calf atrophy at the end of follow-up was 1.2 cm (range, 0 - 2.5 cm). At the last follow-up visit, no patient had any limitation in the activities of daily living and the active and passive ankle range of motion was good. All patients were able to perform single-leg heel rises at the end of follow-up and the Hooker scores were excellent for 11 patients and satisfactory for four patients. CONCLUSION: The reconstruction of chronic Achilles tendon ruptures via the Lindholm technique or via the Vulpius technique is associated with good clinical and functional outcomes.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.346
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207