MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W270039332

A biomechanical study in cadavers of cast boots used in the early postoperative period after first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis.

2003· article· en· W270039332 on OpenAlexaffabout
Darryl Young, N. Craig Stone, John Molgaard, Diane Durford

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaverMedicineArthrodesisJoint (building)HeelOrthodonticsCadaveric spasmBiomechanicsSurgeryAnatomyStructural engineeringEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of 3 common models of walking boots (Walkabout, Samson Walker and Equalizer Premium Walker) to that of a fibreglass cast in protecting an arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint in the early postoperative period, we carried out a biomechanical study in cadavers in the bioengineering laboratory at Memorial University of Newfoundland. METHODS: Two cadaver models of a first MTP joint arthrodesis were prepared by placing a strain gauge at the joint. This provided a measure of the bending moment across the fusion site. Walking was simulated by applying a force to the sole of the cadaver foot at multiple positions from heel to toe, representing the stages of gait from heel strike to toe off. RESULTS: For both cadaver specimens, the Walkabout boot had the lowest mean moment. The Walkabout and Sampson Walker boots were better than the Equalizer Premium Walker boot and the fibreglass cast (p < 0.05), but the Walkabout boot was the best (p < 0.05). Also, for both specimens, the Walkabout boot had the smallest absolute maximum moment (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: On a first MTP joint arthrodesis site, removable cast boots provide the same, if not more, reduction of force as a traditional cast.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207