MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793414858 · doi:10.1097/bot.0000000000001115

Critical-Size Bone Defects: Is There a Consensus for Diagnosis and Treatment?

2018· review· en· W2793414858 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedic Trauma · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a significant burden of disease associated with bone defects, and their management is challenging. These injuries have a profound clinical and economic impact, and outcomes are limited by high rates of complication and reoperation, as well as poor functional outcomes. There remains a lack of consensus around definitions, reliable models, and best practices for the surgical management of bone defects. The current state of the literature on bone defects is reviewed here, with a focus on defining critical-size bone defect, the use of the induced membrane technique, the role of biologics, and the management of infected bone defects.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.305 · 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