MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887229058 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1667297

Current Options for the Treatment of Pectus Carinatum: When to Brace and When to Operate?

2018· review· en· W2887229058 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

VenueEuropean Journal of Pediatric Surgery · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPectus Deformity Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsShriners Hospitals for Children - CanadaMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPectus carinatumMedicinePectus excavatumBraceDeformitySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pectus carinatum has traditionally been described as a rare chest wall anomaly in comparison to pectus excavatum. However, recent data from chest wall anomaly clinics demonstrate that this deformity is probably much more frequent than once believed. In the past, invasive surgical correction by the Ravitch technique was essentially the only option for treatment of pectus carinatum. Major advances over the past two decades have provided additional options, including noninvasive chest wall bracing and minimally invasive surgical correction. This article will discuss current options for the treatment of pectus carinatum, and some of the factors that should be taken into account when choosing the options available. Diagnosis and treatment of the pectus arcuatum variant will also be described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.242 · 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