MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W283735091 · doi:10.1093/pch/19.10.513

Ponseti clubfoot management: Experience with the Steenbeek foot abduction brace

2014· article· en· W283735091 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Mang'oli, Joseph Theuri, Tobias R. Kollmann, Noni E. MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubfootPonseti methodBraceMedicineFoot (prosody)Physical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyOrthodonticsSurgeryDeformityEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The content of this article is the sole work of the authors. No benefits of any form have been derived from any commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject matter of this article. Clubfoot is one of the most common congenital deformities, with an incidence of one in 1000 live births worldwide. In Kenya, approximately 1200 infants are born with clubfoot every year. Left untreated, clubfoot leads to painful, disabling deformity and social stigmatization. Bracing is an integral part of the internationally accepted standard of care, and the Ponseti method of clubfoot management with compliance with bracing is considered to be the key to a successful outcome (1). This has brought the type of brace under scrutiny, with newer ‘child-friendly’ braces recommended over the traditional Dennis Brown brace (Figure 1), which has been associated with high rates of noncompliance. However, these child-friendly braces are expensive (USD$300) and out of reach for most families of affected children in Kenya and other developing countries. The Steenbeek foot abduction brace (SFAB) is made locally in Kenya at a cost of

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207