Vancouver Foot and Ankle WNS (Wound, Nerve, and Systemic) Classification System for Foot and Ankle Orthopedic Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adverse events require consistent recording to determine the effect of alternate treatments. This study was undertaken to evaluate the Vancouver Foot and Ankle WNS complication scale to capture complications (W: wound, N: nerve, S: systemic) to assist in outcome recording. METHODS: Interrater reliability was tested in 2 settings: (1) between 2 blinded clinicians in a live clinical setting and (2) between 8 orthopedic surgeons using case vignettes based on a retrospective analysis of 500 foot and ankle procedures performed at the Toronto Western Hospital, Department of Orthopaedics. The intrarater reliability of the WNS scale was tested in a single rater using the case vignettes. Inter- and intrarater reliability were assessed using the Fleiss and Cohen weighted kappa ( k), respectively and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). There was adequate power over 0.8. RESULTS: In the live clinical setting, the Cohen weighted k (95% CI) values for the W (0.935 [0.862, 1.01]), N (0.914 [0.752, 1.08]), and S (1 [1, 1]) parameters, indicating a near perfect level of agreement between raters. In the broader community of professional foot and ankle surgeons, the Fleiss k values (95% CI) had moderate agreement for the W (0.712 [0.688, 0.735]), N (0.775 [0.738, 0.811]), and high agreement for S (0.834 [0.802, 0.866]) parameters based on case vignettes. However, the Fleiss k values continued to indicate moderate to strong agreement between raters for all parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The WNS scale provided a standardized method of measuring foot and ankle surgical complications. There was at least moderate-strong interrater agreement for all parameters measured on case vignettes and excellent concordance in the live setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative series.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".