MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008180858 · doi:10.1097/btf.0000000000000268

Arthroscopic Ankle Arthrodesis: A Review of Current Concepts and Technique

2020· review· en· W3008180858 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew G Marsh, Sahil Kooner, Catherine Conlin, Rafi Hussain, Kourosh M. Yeganeh, Johnny Lau

Bibliographic record

VenueTechniques in Foot & Ankle Surgery · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsToronto Western HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArthrodesisContraindicationAnkle arthrodesisAnkleArthroscopyOrthopedic surgerySurgeryOsteoarthritisGold standard (test)Physical therapyRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Open ankle arthrodesis (OAA) has traditionally been the gold standard for improving pain and function in ankle osteoarthritis patients. With advances in arthroscopic technology and improved instrumentation, arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (AAA) has become more popular among orthopedic surgeons with equivalent or better outcomes compared with OAA. Recent studies have shown that, with increasing experience, AAA can even be suitable for large deformities, which has been traditional viewed as a relative contraindication. A review of literature and concepts with expert opinion. AAA has been shown in the literature to have equivalent fusion rates, decreased hospital length of stay, and better short-term and long-term function when compared with OAA. Arthroscopy advantages include faster time to union, decreased morbidity, decreased blood loss, and accelerated rehabilitation. Advanced arthroscopic techniques and instrumentation facilitate joint preparation with limited soft tissue injury, creating a favorable environment for fusion. Arthroscopic techniques lead to better short-term and long-term outcomes and decreased complications compared with open arthrodesis. The technique has been shown to be successful and reproducible within the literature, and can be employed to ultimately reduce overall hospital care costs and improve patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechniques in Foot & Ankle SurgerySame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207