MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080969025 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.19.00182

Musculoskeletal Infection in Orthopaedic Oncology

2019· article· en· W3080969025 on OpenAlexaff
John Strony, Scot Brown, Peter Choong, Michelle Ghert, Lee Jeys, Richard J. O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopedic Infections and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityJuravinski Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspecialtyMedicineFamily medicineOrthopedic surgeryInternal medicinePeriprostheticOncologyGeneral surgerySurgeryArthroplasty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The first International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection convened in 2013 in order to provide agreement on the prevention, the diagnosis, and the treatment of surgical site infection (SSI) and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Recognizing the added susceptibility of orthopaedic oncology patients to SSI and PJI, the second ICM in 2018 included questions and corresponding recommendations from this subspecialty of orthopaedics. METHODS: The 13 steps of the Delphi method were followed over the course of 26 months, starting in June 2016. From July 25 to 27, 2018, delegates from 93 countries convened at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Delegates were divided into their subspecialty workgroups, where questions and recommendations were discussed, modified, and subsequently voted upon. The level of consensus measured the agreement among the delegates on the basis of the voting results. The level of evidence that accompanied each question and recommendation was dependent on the types of studies that were reviewed for each question and the number of flaws that were present in those studies. RESULTS: There were 30 orthopaedic oncology questions and recommendations that were voted on by 14 delegates with expertise in either orthopaedic oncology or infectious disease. Twenty-six (87%) of the questions were unanimous among the delegates. The remaining 13% (n = 4) were agreed upon by 93% of the delegates, with 7% of the delegates abstaining from the vote. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of orthopaedic oncology in the 2018 ICM on Musculoskeletal Infection was particularly important because of the high rate of SSI and PJI following these procedures. Despite there being strong consensus among voting delegates, these recommendations are based on limited levels of evidence and tend to reflect the recommendations from hip and knee arthroplasty. We hope that high-quality prospective studies in the field of orthopaedic oncology are available for the third ICM.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicOrthopedic Infections and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207