COVID-19: pivoting from in-person to virtual orthopedic surgical evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary In March 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic necessitated substantial downscaling of office-based orthopedic surgical practice. To address the ongoing need for patient assessment, surgical practices pivoted from in-person appointments to a virtual platform. Patients (n = 1823), contacted by telephone (82%) or by video (18%), judged this new approach as excellent or very good in 71% of telephone contacts, and in 84% of those successfully inter-viewed by video. For future meetings, 4 of 5 patients preferred virtual rather than in-person contact. Patients whose round-trip travel time for in-person appointments was under 2 hours were twice as likely to prefer future in-person contact as those more than 2 hours away. Patients who had far to travel or who used walking aids were more likely to travel accompanied. Acknowledging that patients value both videoconferencing and telephone contact, surgeons should offer virtual visits as an alternative to in-person assessments. Patients need to have access to reliable Internet. Finally, telemedicine is environmentally friendly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".