MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887538377 · doi:10.1155/2018/7602096

Simultaneous Ipsilateral Quadriceps and Triceps Tendon Rupture in a Patient with End‐Stage Renal Failure

2018· article· en· W2887538377 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Moerenhout, Georgios Gkagkalis, Benoit Benoit, Georges Yves Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Orthopedics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTendon Structure and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois
KeywordsMedicineQuadriceps tendonEnd stage renal failureStage (stratigraphy)SurgeryTendonHemodialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Quadriceps tendon ruptures (QTR) frequently occur in patients with end-stage renal failure, while triceps brachii tendon ruptures (TTR) are less common. This is the first properly documented report of a simultaneous ipsilateral traumatic rupture of both of these tendons. CASE REPORT: A 50-year-old patient, on hemodialysis for end-stage renal failure, fell on his right side. He presented with sudden right knee and elbow pain, with functional impairment of both joints. X-rays showed avulsion-like osseous lesions on the olecranon and patella with a low-riding patella. Ultrasound confirmed complete quadriceps and triceps avulsion ruptures. Both lesions were treated surgically. Fixation was performed with anchors using the Krackow suture technique for both tendons. Postoperative clinical and radiological results were satisfactory, and follow-up was uneventful. The patient regained his preinjury functional level with a complete range of motion of both his knee and elbow. DISCUSSION: Isolated QTR and TTR are frequent lesions in chronic renal failure patients treated with hemodialysis. Simultaneous ipsilateral rupture of both tendons however is extremely rare and should therefore not be overlooked. Surgical treatment is recommended for complete ruptures.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in OrthopedicsSame topicTendon Structure and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207