MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939033748 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-18-00184

Hip Surveillance in Children With Cerebral Palsy

2019· review· en· W2939033748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Wade Shrader, Lane Wimberly, Rachel M. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCerebral palsyMedicineGross Motor Function Classification SystemPelvisHip dysplasiaPhysical therapyRadiographySubluxationGross motor skillPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgeryMotor skill

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hip dysplasia is common in children with cerebral palsy (CP), especially in those children with notable functional impairment. Severity of hip dysplasia has been shown to correlate with higher Gross Motor Function Classification System levels. Migration percentage measured on AP pelvis radiographs is the key radiographic measure quantifying hip displacement in CP. Hip surveillance programs for children with CP exist in Europe, Australia, and parts of Canada and have been adopted as standard of care. These programs have demonstrated improved detection of hip subluxation and appropriate early intervention with a resultant decrease in the number of painful dislocations. Hip surveillance programs provide healthcare providers with guidance for a schedule of obtaining hip radiographs based on patients' age, Gross Motor Function Classification System level, and migration percentage. Although systematic surveillance programs have yet to be adopted in the United States, several centers and organizations are currently investigating the potential and efficacy of hip screening in CP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations82
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207