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
BACKGROUND: Traditional socket prostheses are not a viable option for all lower-limb prosthetic users. Discomfort, pain in the residual limb, and problems related to the fit of the socket are common and have been shown to negatively impact quality of life and mobility. Osseointegrated or bone-anchored prosthetic implants have evolved over the past 2 decades as a promising alternative for patients who are experiencing substantial issues with socket prostheses. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed to identify studies focusing on the evolution, clinical outcomes, success rates, and complications of osseointegrated lower-limb prostheses. Articles were summarized according to the implant type, amputation level, and study characteristics, with rating of the Level of Evidence. Information on patient selection criteria, outcomes, and complications was extracted. RESULTS: Fourteen articles (with Level-II, III, or IV evidence) met the inclusion criteria. Infection and soft-tissue irritation at the stoma were the most common complications. It is evident that, over the years, changes in implant design, surgical technique, perioperative and postoperative care, and rehabilitation protocols have resulted in improvements in functional outcomes and health-related quality of life, and reduction in rates of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Osseointegration for limb amputation has become an established clinical treatment option for persons with lower-limb amputation not tolerating traditional socket prostheses. Osseointegration could provide substantial benefits regarding function and quality of life for appropriately selected patients who accept the documented risks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it