MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950767160 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-18-00471

Augmented Fixation for Fractures of the Appendicular Skeleton

2019· review· en· W2950767160 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey S. Marecek, Hugo Centomo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsHôpital Notre-Dame
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFixation (population genetics)Medullary cavityBone graftingSurgeryOrthodonticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite advances in technology such as locked plating, osteoporotic bone and bone defects remain challenging complications for orthopaedic surgeons. The concept of augmented fixation is useful in these settings. Augmented fixation can be described as improving construct strength and stability by enhancing the surrounding environment. By understanding and using the techniques of alternative fixation strategies, endosteal or medullary support, structural grafting, or the use of bone graft substitutes in combination with standard or integrated fixation, surgeons can improve the chances of success when treating difficult fractures. The purpose of this article is to introduce the reader to the concept of augmented fixation, review strategies for its application, and review applicable published results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207