MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rationale and Options for Choosing an Optimal Closure Technique for Primary Midsagittal Osteochondrotomy of the Sternum. Part 1: A Theoretical and Critical Review of Functional Anatomy, Biomechanics, and Fracture Healing

2019· review· en· W2909343422 on OpenAlexaff
Harjeet Singh Gandhi

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma Management and Diagnosis
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSternumPectoral girdleThorax (insect anatomy)AnatomyMediastinumMedicineThoracic wallBiomechanicsThoracic cavitySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sternum is central in binding the bilateral costal structures to form the anterior wall of the thorax. The airtight subatmospheric pressure cavity of the thorax during respiration and episodes of cough produces significant dynamic forces acting perpetually on its walls, influencing functions of the contained viscera. The embryonic development of the sternum concurs with that of the heart and parts of the pectoral girdle. Any imperfection of the sternum, whether congenital or iatrogenic, can significantly compromise the normal physiology of the thoracic wall and cardio-respiratory systems. Midsagittal osteochondrotomy (division) of the sternum is a necessary step to access the mediastinum for an open cardiac procedure. To return the thorax to its normal function, it is imperative that surgeons have thorough working knowledge of the surgical anatomy of the sternum and the biomechanics of an intact and disrupted thoracic wall. Patient-based outcome measures of an index cardiac surgery can only be considered conclusive if the divided sternum heals over time to have full benefit of the surgery. Here, the essential topographical anatomy and embryology of the sternum, thoracic biomechanics, fracture biology, and surgical access to the mediastinum are reviewed to provide a better understanding of the performance and importance of the healed sternum.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.315 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicTrauma Management and DiagnosisFrench-language works237,207