MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046847497 · doi:10.1016/j.eats.2020.04.008

Posteromedial Opening‐Wedge Tibial Osteotomy for Metaphyseal Varus and Abnormal Posterior Slope Correction in Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions Using a Custom Cutting Guide

2020· article· en· W3046847497 on OpenAlexaff
Boris Corin, Adrian J. Wilson, Raghbir Khakha, Kristian Kley, Sébastien Parratte, Matthieu Ollivier

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy Techniques · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersZimmer BiometStrykerArthrexZimmer
KeywordsMedicineHigh tibial osteotomyAnterior cruciate ligamentFixation (population genetics)OsteotomyVarus deformitySurgeryAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionOrthodonticsOsteoarthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after graft failure may need associated bone correction to ensure stability of the knee. This article presents a technique of posteromedial opening-wedge osteotomy using a custom cutting guide to correct increased tibial slope and metaphyseal varus deformity after recurrent graft failure. An autograft quadriceps tendon graft was selected for the revision anterior cruciate ligament graft. After exposure with an anteromedial incision a patient specific cutting guide was used to make the high tibial osteotomy. The final fixation of the posteromedial opening was achieved using a low-profile locking plate and a femoral head allograft bone wedge. The tibial tunnel was planned and included in the patient-specific cutting guide. The femoral tunnel was placed using an outside to in manner. Bioabsorbable screws were used as fixation devices.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy TechniquesSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207