MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rationale and Options for Choosing an Optimal Closure Technique for Primary Midsagittal Osteochondrotomy of the Sternum, Part 2: A Theoretical and Critical Review of Techniques and Fixation Devices

2019· review· en· W2917307105 on OpenAlexaff
Harjeet Singh Gandhi

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSternumFixation (population genetics)MedicineOrthodonticsSurgeryAnatomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intact one-piece sternum is indispensible to the thorax for its normal physiological biomechanics. To overcome tri-planar forces acting on the sternum following midsagittal osteochondrotomy, it must be reconstructed using an optimal technique to withstand distraction loads of normal respiration and violent cough. It should be fixed rigidly to reconstitute the anterior coronal column of the axial skeleton to maintain erect posture and prevent kyphosis. Sterile or infective non-union of the sternum compromises the physical endurance of patients and has an immense psychological effect. From an engineering perspective, there is no substantially proven gold standard technique to fix a divided sternum. Stainless steel wire applied in various configurations to a variety of shapes and sizes has become an acceptable standard of care due to its long-standing history and cost-effectiveness. Recently there has been a proliferation of innovative techniques to deal with primary and failed union of the sternum in an effort to prevent mechanical failure and serious deep surgical wound infection progressing to mediastinitis. Among the newer implant designs, the ones currently in use are shaped like clamps and clasps to compress the sternal halves together as well as alphabet-shaped mini-plating systems. In this section of the review series, mechanisms, pros and cons of currently available implants to reconstruct the bisected sternum, and external support systems considered necessary in high-risk clients are discussed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Biomedical EngineeringSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207