MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3041783186

원저 : Vancouver분류 B2, B3형 대퇴삽입물 주위골절의 치료

2008· article· ko· W3041783186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
최일용, 조수현, Young-Ho Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueHip & Pelvis · 2008
Typearticle
Languageko
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTowerGeologyGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

목적: Vancouver B2, B3형 대퇴스템 주위골절 치료시 기존의 대퇴스템을 치환한 경우와 유지한 경우의 결과를 분석하였다. 대상 및 방법: 1993년 1월부터 2004년 10월까지 본원에서 수술한 Vancouver B2형 골절 19예와 B3형 골절 8예를 대상으로 하였다. 기존 스템을 사용한 경우(A군)는 15예, 긴스템으로 치환한 경우(B군)는 12예이었다. 두군 모두 금속판 및 나사못, 케이블등으로 견고한 내고정을 하였으며, 임상적 평가는 Harris 고관절 점수, 방사선학적 평가는 Beals 및 Tower의 기준을 이용하였다. 결과: Harris 고관절 점수는 A군이 84점, B군이 85점이었다. 80점 이하의 불만족은 A군에서 2예, B군에서 2예 관찰되었다. 방사선학적 평가는 A군의 대퇴스템 해리 1예와, B군의 골절 불유합 1예가 불량이었고, 나머지는 모두 우수로 판정되었다. 합병증은 대퇴스템 해리, 불유합, 표재성 감염, 탈구, 비구컵해리가 각각 1예씩 발생하였다. 결론: 골절과 대퇴스템을 견고하게 고정하고 골이식을 충분히 시행한다면 기존 대퇴 스템의 치환여부에 상관없이 우수한 임상적 결과를 얻을 수 있을 것으로 사료된다

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.011

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHip & PelvisSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207